Live tracker
When AI citations
reach the lawyer.
A running record of US court matters involving AI-generated citations that could not be verified, by lawyers and other represented parties, from warnings and show-cause orders to fines, suspensions, and bar referrals. Every row links to the underlying court document. We maintain it because the risk Veritas addresses is documented, public, and growing fast.
370
US attorney matters tracked
$519,031+
in monetary penalties imposed
125
with professional sanctions (suspension, bar referral, more)
Since 2023
and accelerating
370 of 370
| Case | Court | Date | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shani Washington v. Jermel Washington Pro Se Litigant In a child-custody appeal, the court stated it was troubled by the pro se appellant's citation to cases and quotations it characterized as fictitious throughout her appellate brief, observing that such hallucinated cases are typically a hallmark of irresponsible use of generative AI in legal drafting. The court cautioned her regarding any future filings; no penalty was imposed in this opinion. | CA Georgia | Jun 4, 2026 | Caution issued (no penalty imposed) Warning |
| Euphoric, LLC et al. v. Westport Community Improvement District, et al. Lawyer The court noted inaccuracies and errors in plaintiffs' counsel's filings, including possible use of generative AI tools, and reminded counsel of their professional duty to verify the substance and form of legal authority presented. The court admonished counsel but imposed no monetary sanction in this order. | W.D. Missouri | Jun 3, 2026 | Admonishment (no penalty imposed) Warning |
| Lnu v. Blanche Lawyer The Ninth Circuit panel imposed sanctions on attorneys Sethi and Rounds, whose briefs contained nonexistent cases, misattributed quotations, and misrepresentations of real cases that the panel attributed to generative AI hallucinations. The panel held the violation occurred at the point of signing and filing, ordered each attorney to pay $2,500 to the Clerk, suspended each from practice before the court for six months, imposed a two-year certification requirement on future filings, and directed the Clerk to serve the order on the State Bar of California. | 9th Cir. | Jun 3, 2026 | Monetary penalty: $2,500 per attorney; 6-month suspension from the court; State Bar referral FineSuspensionProfessional sanctionBar referral |
| Wayne K. Smith, Sr. v. Polk County, et al. Lawyer The court found that plaintiff's counsel's memorandum contained quotations of legal authority that do not appear in the cited sources, which counsel did not directly deny were the product of AI hallucination. The court denied the underlying motion and directed counsel to show cause why she should not be sanctioned. | W.D. North Carolina | Jun 3, 2026 | Order to show cause Show cause |
| Fadi El Bitar v. Julio Hernandez Lawyer · Google Gemini Petitioner's counsel acknowledged that legal interns used Google Gemini to generate text containing quotations that do not exist and were presented as binding Ninth Circuit precedent. The court held the signing attorney responsible, imposed a $1,000 sanction payable to the Clerk, issued a public reprimand, and discharged the order to show cause. | W.D. Washington | Jun 2, 2026 | Monetary penalty: $1,000; public reprimand FineWarning |
| Reaves Law Firm, PLLC v. Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, et al. Lawyer The court found that plaintiff law firm Reaves Law Firm relied on generative-AI-assisted filings containing citations and quotations to authorities that could not be verified, in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The court ordered the firm to reimburse defendants' costs and attorneys' fees for the responsive filings (amount to be set on a later accounting) and referred the matter to the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility's Disciplinary Counsel. | W.D. Tennessee | Jun 2, 2026 | Rule 11 sanctions: cost/fee reimbursement (amount to be determined); referral to Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility Professional sanctionBar referral |
| Heriberto Perez-Castillo v. Todd W. Blanche Lawyer · ChatGPT The Seventh Circuit found that the petitioner's opening brief contained roughly two dozen quotations that do not exist, seven cases incorrectly identified as circuit precedent, and assertions contradicted by the record, which counsel attributed to ChatGPT. The court imposed a $5,000 fine on attorney Abdullah Salah under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46(c), declined to sanction the contracted drafting attorney (Farah Chalisa) at that time, and referred the matter to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. | 7th Cir. | Jun 1, 2026 | Monetary penalty: $5,000; referral of co-counsel to Illinois ARDC FineProfessional sanctionBar referral |
| Garcia v. City of Monte Vista, Colorado et al Lawyer In addressing the pleadings, the court noted that filings appeared to contain hallucinated legal authority obtained from generative AI tools and stated it would separately enter an order to show cause on that issue. | D. Colorado | May 29, 2026 | Order to show cause Show cause |
| Boyle, et al. v. Steven Kramer Pro Se Litigant The court observed that a citation in the filings did not appear in the cited opinion and appeared to have been created by generative AI tools, noting that AI can be a tempting tool for pro se litigants. The court overruled plaintiffs' objections and cautioned that future improper filings could be struck or lead to dismissal. | E.D. Michigan | May 28, 2026 | Warning (objections overruled) Warning |
| In re M.H., M.L., and M.H., Minors Pro Se Litigant The Public Guardian argued that the mother's appellate brief misstated holdings, miscited cases, and referenced cases that do not exist, in violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7). The court proceeded to decide the appeal on the merits and the record; no sanction is reported in the provided text. | CA Illinois (1d) | May 28, 2026 | No penalty reported (arguments treated as forfeited) |
| Eclectic Synergy, LLC v. Seredin Lawyer Counsel's certiorari petition cited a decision that does not appear under the citation given; counsel characterized it as a transcription error referencing an overruled Ohio decision and denied using AI, attributing the research to a paralegal. The court rejected the explanation and addressed the citation through its show-cause process. | CA Florida (4d) | May 27, 2026 | Order to show cause Show cause |
| Innocent v. Meraki Installers, LLC Lawyer In this Florida Fourth District appeal, the court addressed counsel's filing containing improper citations and referred the matter for disciplinary review. | CA Florida (4d) | May 27, 2026 | Bar referral Bar referral |
| Robert Hinton Avery W v. Danielle Beauzil Pro Se Litigant In two consolidated cases arising from a divorce proceeding, the court ordered the pro se petitioner to show cause why it should not stop accepting his pro se filings, and after considering his response concluded sanctions were appropriate. The opinion noted that cited cases did not support the arguments made and that litigants are responsible for AI-generated filings containing what the court described as fictitious authority or actual cases cited for inaccurate legal propositions. | CA Florida (4th) | May 27, 2026 | Pro se filing bar imposed after order to show cause Show cause |
| State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Reeves Lawyer · ChatGPT The Oklahoma Supreme Court considered reciprocal discipline after the respondent admitted, in a federal show-cause response, that citations in two motions were generated by ChatGPT, which the federal court held were not accurate statements of law. Texas and Alabama authorities had already imposed public reprimands for the same conduct. | SC Oklahoma | May 27, 2026 | Public reprimand (reciprocal discipline) Professional sanctionWarning |
| Williamson v. Meyers (derivatively on behalf of Equinix, Inc.) Lawyer After opposing counsel flagged a citation to a non-existent authority, plaintiff conceded the citation was most likely the result of AI. The court declined to consider any contentions resting on that authority and stated it would consider whether further action was necessary. | D. Delaware | May 27, 2026 | Warning (fabricated authority disregarded) Warning |
| Guo v. Meade Motorcars, L.L.C. Pro Se Litigant The appellate court found that five cases cited by the pro se litigant could not be located at the citations given, with some not located at all and the rest not containing the quoted language or supporting the propositions cited; the court stated they appeared to be the result of AI-generated hallucinations. When confronted, he affirmed the citations existed and criticized opposing counsel's diligence. The court affirmed the trial court's sanction against him and taxed the costs of the appeal. | Ohio CA (6th) | May 26, 2026 | Trial-court sanction affirmed on appeal; appeal costs taxed |
| Johnny Fuselier v. John S. Riscassi Lawyer The court identified a citation to a case that does not exist, along with quotations not found in real cases and mischaracterizations of law, in plaintiff's summary-judgment response. The court directed attorney Aaron Randall Rice to show cause why he should not be sanctioned under Rule 11. | S.D. Mississippi | May 22, 2026 | Order to show cause Show cause |
| Kings Roofing Nwfl, LLC v. Fusion Works Construction, LLC Lawyer After the appeal was dismissed, the court expressly retained jurisdiction to pursue possible sanctions against the appellant's counsel over authority in his initial brief. Counsel was ordered to file the cited cases with the court within ten days and to show cause why he should not be sanctioned and referred to The Florida Bar for potential discipline. | CA Florida (1st) | May 22, 2026 | Order to show cause on sanctions and possible Florida Bar referral Show cause |
| Kings Roofing v. Fusion Works Lawyer Although the appeal was dismissed by joint stipulation, the court retained jurisdiction over possible sanctions because the initial brief cited several cases that appear not to exist, apparently drafted with generative AI without adequate safeguards. The court directed attorney McCommon to show cause and referred the matter to The Florida Bar for potential discipline. | CA Florida (6th) | May 22, 2026 | Appeal dismissed; order to show cause; bar referral Show causeBar referral |
| Dalton Gage Hill v. Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Authority (2) Lawyer In a Report and Recommendation, a magistrate judge addressed counsel's repeated failure to disclose AI use and recommended Rule 11 sanctions, finding monetary sanctions appropriate given the costs of litigating the motion and counsel's failure to investigate and correct the amended complaint. The judge recommended ordering Mr. McBride to pay Defendant Winchester's reasonable attorney's fees (to be fixed on a later accounting) and recommended a contempt finding. | W.D. Oklajoma | May 21, 2026 | Report and Recommendation: Rule 11 sanctions (attorney fees, amount to be determined) and contempt recommended FineProfessional sanction |
| In re the Marriage of Amy Haddock and Justin Blu Haddock Lawyer The court found that Mr. Johnson, husband's counsel, filed a motion containing three citations to nonexistent law and three citations mischaracterizing the propositions for which real cases stood. The court sanctioned Mr. Johnson $2,000, payable into the court fund within thirty days, declined to impose additional sanctions, and stated it would contact the Oklahoma Bar Association about the order. | Tulsa County DC | May 21, 2026 | Monetary sanction: $2,000; Oklahoma Bar Association notified FineProfessional sanctionBar referral |
| Jackie L. Miller v. Regions Bank Lawyer In ongoing disciplinary proceedings, the court addressed what it found to be attorney H. Gregory Harp's misuse of generative AI to make inaccurate statements to the court and his efforts to conceal that use. The court's measures included disqualifying him from the case, suspending him from practice in the Northern District of Alabama, and referring the matter to the Alabama State Bar. | N.D. Alabama | May 21, 2026 | Disqualification from case; suspension from N.D. Ala.; bar referral DisqualificationSuspensionProfessional sanctionBar referral |
| Shaker Hts. v. Thompson Pro Se Litigant In a criminal appeal, the court found the pro se appellant's cited cases either did not support the propositions for which they were cited or were, in the court's words, apparent fabrications, very possibly hallucinated cases generated by artificial intelligence services. The court declined to consider the propositions supported by those citations and affirmed the judgment; no sanction was imposed. | Ohio CA (8th) | May 21, 2026 | Citations disregarded (no penalty imposed) Warning |
| That Xiong v. Minga Wofford (2) Lawyer The court addressed an order to show cause arising from hallucinated citations in petitioner's reply brief and counsel's failure to comply with a prior order. Considering the early-career involvement of a law student, the court discharged the OSC and declined to impose sanctions, repeating its admonishment that AI tools must be used responsibly. | E.D. California | May 21, 2026 | No sanctions imposed; order to show cause discharged |
| Twigg v. BSN Sports, Inc., et al. Lawyer The court found that counsel's brief cited cases that do not exist, cited real but unrelated cases, and quoted language that does not appear in the cited opinions. The court denied most of the omnibus motion and directed Mr. Mattiacci to show cause why he should not be sanctioned under Rule 11. | M.D. Pennsylvania | May 21, 2026 | Order to show cause Show cause |
| Davis v. Marion County Juvenile Detention Center Lawyer A magistrate judge found that attorney Tae Sture included two non-existent citations, generated by an AI research tool, in a brief, in violation of Rule 11. The district court adopted the Rule 11 analysis but reduced the monetary sanction to $2,000, payable to the Clerk, while declining to adopt the state-rule findings (separately referred to the Indiana Disciplinary Commission). | S.D. Indiana | May 20, 2026 | Monetary penalty: $2,000 FineProfessional sanction |
| Landberg v City of New York Lawyer On its own motion, the Appellate Division directed all parties to show cause why sanctions or costs should not be imposed under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 against appellant's counsel for filing briefs that the court described as containing nonexistent or erroneous legal authority and citations. | App. NY (2d) | May 20, 2026 | Order to show cause Show cause |
| Sherwood v. County of Botetourt, Virginia, et al. Pro Se Litigant The court observed that plaintiffs' sweeping claims included citations to hallucinated law apparently obtained from generative AI tools, alongside fundamental misunderstandings of Virginia law. The court addressed the claims on the merits; no sanction is reported in the provided text. | W.D. Virginia | May 20, 2026 | No penalty reported (claims dismissed) |
| Taffether Hopson v. Capital One Auto Finance, Division of Capital One, N.A. Pro Se Litigant The court affirmed dismissal of the pro se plaintiff's complaint and noted that her briefs were replete with inaccurate citations, which caused the opposing party and the court to expend unnecessary effort to discern her claims. The opinion quoted authority cautioning against reliance on artificial intelligence in brief preparation; no penalty was imposed. | CA Georgia | May 20, 2026 | Criticism noted in opinion (no penalty imposed) Warning |
| Chakma v. Sushi Katsuei, Inc. Lawyer · LexisNexis AI Defense counsel admitted using LexisNexis's AI tool to construct submissions, failing to review the final versions, and acknowledged that certain citations resulted from AI hallucinations and did not support the propositions cited. The court ordered Defense Counsel to pay $1,710 of a $48,690 fee award attributable to her misconduct and imposed a separate $1,000 deterrence penalty payable to the Clerk, for $2,710 in liability tied to the AI conduct; the remaining fee and cost amounts were assigned to the defendants. | S.D. New York | May 19, 2026 | Monetary penalty: $1,000; plus $1,710 fee reimbursement attributable to counsel FineProfessional sanction |
| Glenn Wilder and Others v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Others Lawyer The court denied attorney T. Michael Morgan's motion to appear pro hac vice, citing his prior sanction in the District of Wyoming (Wadsworth v. Walmart) where he signed motions in limine citing eight non-existent cases hallucinated by his firm's in-house AI platform. The court was troubled by that demonstrated failure. | SC Massachussetts | May 18, 2026 | Pro hac vice admission denied Professional sanction |
| Waggeh v. Utility Workers Union of America Local 1-2 et al. Lawyer In response to an order to show cause, petitioner's counsel admitted that cases cited in his papers were incorrectly cited and did not support his argument, and withdrew the argument. The court found a non-monetary sanction appropriate under Rule 11(b)(4) and publicly admonished counsel on the record. | S.D. New York | May 16, 2026 | Public admonishment (non-monetary Rule 11 sanction) Professional sanctionWarning |
| K.W. v. Ringwood Board of Education Lawyer The magistrate judge ordered plaintiff's counsel to provide PDF copies and pinpoint locations for quotations in his summary-judgment briefing, to explain where any unverifiable cases and quotations originated, and to disclose whether and to what extent generative AI was used in drafting. | D. New Jersey | May 15, 2026 | Order to explain prior citations Show cause |
| Nikko D’Ambrosio v. Meta Platforms Inc. Lawyer The Seventh Circuit observed that the submission of a brief with numerous citations and quotations that do not exist is a serious dereliction of counsel's duty as an officer of the court, regardless of how the errors arose. The court addressed the citation problem in the course of deciding the appeal. | CA 7th Cir. | May 15, 2026 | Order to show cause Show cause |
| In the Matter of Janelle Melissa Lewis, an attorney and counselor-at-law Lawyer The Appellate Division recounted that respondent, hired to draft a federal show-cause response, produced a draft containing citations to non-existent cases that the underlying federal court attributed to ChatGPT or a similar AI program. In this disciplinary proceeding the court granted the Attorney Grievance Committee's motion and immediately suspended respondent from the practice of law in New York; no monetary sanction was imposed in this order. | App. Div. 1st Dept (NY) | May 14, 2026 | Interim suspension from the practice of law in New York SuspensionProfessional sanctionBar referral |
| Stringer v. White Cap Supply Holdings, LLC Lawyer The court found that plaintiff's response repeatedly cited facts and legal theories with no basis in the record, appeared to potentially violate Rule 11, and raised concerns that the filing may have been the product of impermissible use of AI programs. The court stated it would issue a separate order to show cause to plaintiff's counsel. | M.D. Florida | May 14, 2026 | Order to show cause Show cause |
| Gleason v. Marcus, Canvassing Board of Pinellas County Pro Se Litigant The court addressed authority in the pro se filer's papers that it could not credit, describing unverified reliance of that kind as unwise, unacceptable, and sanctionable, and surveying recent decisions sanctioning similar conduct. It notified him that future filings of this nature would not receive favorable treatment and reminded all litigants, pro se and represented, of the duty to ensure the accuracy of their filings. | CA Florida (2d) | May 13, 2026 | Notice that future similar filings will not receive favorable treatment Warning |
| Jane Doe 1, et al. v. Mount Saint Mary High School Corporation Lawyer The court found that plaintiffs' counsel relied on unverified generative-AI research producing citations that do not exist as written, and that counsel alerted opposing counsel but not the court and did not withdraw the brief. The court fashioned a deterrence-focused sanction; old data indicates a public reprimand with client notice and bar self-referral. | W.D. Oklahoma | May 13, 2026 | Public reprimand; notice to client; self-referral to bar Professional sanctionWarningBar referral |
| Joseph Guy v. AFGE Lawyer The court found that counsel's motion contained quotations that do not exist and that, when questioned at the hearing, counsel was unaware of and could not explain the hallucinated quotations. The court denied the motion to quash and ordered counsel to file a declaration under penalty of perjury explaining the quotations at issue. | N.D. California | May 13, 2026 | Order to explain fabricated quotations Show cause |
| Henri Giovani Morales Jimenez v. Christopher Shanahan Lawyer In denying the habeas petition, the court criticized petitioner's counsel for relying on an abrogated Supreme Court case and at least one nonexistent case, providing case names without citations, and otherwise serving the client poorly. No formal monetary sanction is reported in the provided text. | E.D. New York | May 12, 2026 | Admonishment (criticism of counsel); petition denied Warning |
| Jacobs v. Timberlake Lawyer The appellate court and the respondent were unable to locate or verify a case (Harvey v. Harvey) cited by the relator, and the relator's supplemental brief removed the citation without explanation. The court ordered counsel Camille Patti to show cause why she should not be held in contempt and to address the source of the citation. | CA Louisiana (5d) | May 12, 2026 | Order to show cause (possible contempt) Show cause |
| DeVore v. McCombie Lawyer In granting the defendant's motion to dismiss, the court noted with concern that defendant appeared to cite a case (Beecham v. City of Anniston) that the court was unable to locate, while another cited case was real. The court flagged the apparent non-existent citation but reported no sanction in the provided text. | N.D. Illinois | May 11, 2026 | No penalty reported (concern noted); motion to dismiss granted |
| William Louis Armstrong, III v. City of Milwaukee Lawyer The court noted that the County's reply brief had included a citation to a case that does not exist, but that the County caught and corrected the error the same day, so allowing the correction caused no prejudice. The court granted leave to file the corrected reply and granted judgment on the pleadings; the pro se plaintiff was separately admonished about non-compliant filings. | E.D. Wisconsin | May 11, 2026 | Motion to file corrected reply granted; no prejudice found |
| Kristina Crist v. Roy Chris West, et al. Lawyer Following a show-cause order, the court found that plaintiff's counsel, Rachel Bussett, included nonexistent or misleading case citations in a response brief in violation of Rule 11. The court ordered her to pay $250 to the Clerk for the general court fund. | W.D. Oklahoma | May 7, 2026 | Public reprimand; notice to client; monetary penalty: $250 FineWarningProfessional sanction |
| Song Dow Lee, et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, National Association, et al. Lawyer The court found that plaintiffs' opposition misrepresented the holdings of several cases and included a quotation that does not exist. The court ordered counsel to show cause why it should not impose sanctions of $2,500 and/or dismiss the action; no sanction had yet been imposed. | C.D. California | May 7, 2026 | Order to show cause re: sanctions of $2,500 and/or dismissal Show cause |
| Gregoire v. Board of Trustees of SF BART Lawyer The court found that three of four cases cited in plaintiff's opposition could not be located, which it found suggested hallucinations from generative AI tools, and stated that citing nonexistent case law amounts to an inaccurate statement to the court. The court personally sanctioned counsel Jessica Barsotti $1,000 payable to the Clerk, required her to serve the order on her client and complete CLE on ethical AI use, and directed the Clerk to serve the order on the State Bar of California. | N.D. California | May 6, 2026 | Monetary penalty: $1,000; serve order on client; CLE; State Bar notified FineProfessional sanctionBar referral |
| Amanda Adams v. Allen Butler Construction, Inc. Pro Se Litigant The appellate opinion noted deficiencies in the pro se appellant's brief, including citations the opposing party identified as problematic, and recited the trial court's prior admonishment that further blatant misrepresentations of case law would not be permitted and could result in sanctions, with a caution regarding the use of artificial intelligence in preparing filings. | CA Texas, Amarillo | May 5, 2026 | Admonishment (no penalty imposed) Warning |
| Hannah Renee Payne v. The State Lawyer Assistant District Attorney Deborah Leslie acknowledged using artificial-intelligence software to draft the State's briefs and the proposed order and conceded the AI-generated citations were not independently verified; the Court found the filings contained citations to cases that do not exist or do not stand for the propositions asserted. The Supreme Court of Georgia admonished ADA Leslie and the Clayton County District Attorney's office, suspended her privilege to practice before the Court, and vacated and remanded the trial court's order denying Payne's motion for new trial. | SC Georgia | May 5, 2026 | Admonishment; suspension of privilege to practice before the Court; trial court order vacated and remanded Professional sanctionSuspensionWarning |
| Jessica Fuller v. Hyde School, et al. Lawyer · ChatGPT Plaintiff's counsel Attorney Kelly Guagenty disclosed that she or a team member used AI (either Claude or ChatGPT) in drafting two filings and that she had not conducted a line-by-line citation check; the Court found the filings contained citations the defendants characterized as inaccurate, misleading, and potentially fabricated. The Court imposed non-monetary sanctions, ordering counsel to complete a CLE course on generative AI and to create firm procedures to prevent recurrence. | D. Maine | May 5, 2026 | Non-monetary sanctions: AI CLE course and firm procedures Professional sanction |
| Moore v. MC Architects Inc., et al. Lawyer At a hearing the court identified record- and case-citation issues in Moore's oppositions; counsel explained the client had taken a lead role and used AI tools in preparing them and accepted responsibility. Counsel accepted the court's proposed $1,000 sanction without the need for an order to show cause. | D. Hawai'i | May 5, 2026 | Monetary penalty: $1,000 Fine |
| Payne v. State Lawyer In a murder appeal, the assistant district attorney's brief opposing the motion for new trial contained cases the court could not locate and cases that did not stand for the propositions asserted, and the trial court's denial order, largely prepared by the same prosecutor, repeated them. The Supreme Court of Georgia admonished the prosecutor and the district attorney's office, sanctioned her and suspended her privilege to practice before the court, and vacated and remanded the order with instruction to issue a new order free of the citation of cases that could not be located. | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 5, 2026 | Prosecutor admonished and sanctioned; privilege to practice before the court suspended; trial-court order vacated and remanded Professional sanctionSuspension |
| Van Deel v. A-Plus Contracting, LLC Lawyer The court noted the appellant's brief contained multiple inaccurate or nonexistent caselaw citations, among other briefing deficiencies including a misnaming of the court. The Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on the basis of the briefing deficiencies; the provided text reflects no monetary or disciplinary sanction. | Missouri CA | May 5, 2026 | No penalty imposed; appeal dismissed DismissalAlleged |
| Regan Wilkes, et al. v. Canyons School District, et al. Lawyer Following an order to show cause, the court found that plaintiffs' counsel Tyler Ares and Amy Martz violated Rule 11 after the amended complaint relied on case law the defendants identified as non-existent; counsel admitted AI was used, asserting it was only to polish the original writing. The court imposed a monetary sanction of $7,000 as sufficient to deter repetition and declined to dismiss the complaint as a sanction. | D. Utah | May 4, 2026 | Monetary penalty: $7,000 (Rule 11) FineShow cause |
| Richard Paul Smith v. Verra Mobility Corporation et al. Lawyer · ChatGPT Lead counsel Jeffrey Sullivan did not dispute the errors and acknowledged using AI tools, including ChatGPT, to research and draft a motion to dismiss that contained misrepresentations of caselaw and citations to non-existent cases, conceding he did not independently verify each citation. The court found minimal sanctions appropriate and ordered Sullivan to provide his client with copies of the show-cause order, his response, and the order, and to notify the court of compliance. | M.D. Florida | May 1, 2026 | Minimal sanction: ordered to notify client of the conduct Professional sanction |
| Superb Motors Inc. et al. v. Anthony Deo et al. Lawyer Defendant Harry R. Thomasson, a New York-admitted attorney appearing on his own behalf, relied on AI-generated content that produced citations to non-existent legal authority in an opposition brief; the court independently located an additional non-existent citation. The court imposed a $1,500 monetary sanction under Rule 11, payable into the court registry, and expressly declined to refer Thomasson to the grievance committee. | E.D. New York | Apr 30, 2026 | Monetary penalty: $1,500 (Rule 11); grievance referral declined Fine |
| Amparo Trejo v. Miguel Angel Amaya Hernandez Lawyer The Appellate Court of Maryland struck portions of the appellant's brief because the three cases cited as support do not exist, observing of one citation that 'this case does not exist.' The court affirmed the circuit court's judgment; the provided text reflects no monetary or disciplinary sanction. | CA Maryland | Apr 29, 2026 | No penalty imposed; portions of brief struck; judgment affirmed |
| Jane Doe v. Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners Lawyer The court declined, in its discretion, to consider a proposition drawn from a citation it described as fabricated, a 'quote' and 'citation' previously raised to plaintiff's counsel in an earlier letter order. The court resolved the cross-motions for summary judgment on other grounds; the provided text reflects no monetary or disciplinary sanction. | D. Maryland | Apr 29, 2026 | No sanction imposed; fabricated citation disregarded |
| Justin Spiehs v. Erik Smith Lawyer The court confirmed that quotes used in three cases cited by plaintiff are not present in the cited cases and stated it strongly suspects this is a product of AI use, given that a Westlaw search for the quotes returned no exact results. The court declined to enter a show-cause order and strongly warned plaintiff's counsel that further incorrect quotations could result in Rule 11 sanctions. | D. Kansas | Apr 29, 2026 | Caution / warning; no sanction imposed Warning |
| Sai Malena Jimenez-Fogarty v. Thomas Fogarty et al. Lawyer The court found that attorney Tricia S. Lindsay signed two briefs each containing a number of citations that do not exist or are not located in the cited reporter, and that she made no reasonable attempt to check them. The court sanctioned Lindsay $2,500 under Rule 11, payable to the Clerk, and ordered her to provide the opinion to her client and to notify the judges in her other pending cases. | S.D. New York | Apr 29, 2026 | Monetary penalty: $2,500 (Rule 11); client and court notifications Fine |
| Anthony C. Hill v. Workday, Inc. (2) Lawyer · CoCounsel The court addressed Attorney Lenden Webb's filing, which cited authorities that included citations to non-existent or improper case law generated through his firm's use of Westlaw's CoCounsel AI tool. The court personally sanctioned Webb $1,001, payable by him and not by his firm, and ordered him to complete continuing legal education and to circulate the order and CLE materials within his firm. | N.D. California | Apr 28, 2026 | Monetary penalty: $1,001 (paid personally); CLE and circulation requirements FineProfessional sanction |
Updated through 2026-06-09, refreshed monthly. Compiled from publicly filed US court records involving represented parties (non-pro-se); every row links to the underlying court document. It is not legal advice and it is not exhaustive. If you know of a matter we are missing, tell us at andrew@veritaslaw.app.
None of these had to happen.
Every matter on this page traces to a citation no one verified before filing. Veritas verifies every citation and proposition and produces a hashed, time-stamped record that the work was checked.