Real cases where a court sanctioned lawyers for filing AI-fabricated law: the fake citations, the penalties, and a link to each decision. A curated record of the landmark ones; the comprehensive database is credited below.
documented cases worldwide where a court addressed AI-fabricated material, and climbing. The exhaustive, continuously updated database is Damien Charlotin's AI Hallucination Cases database (a research fellow at HEC Paris; 1,598 cases as of June 2026). This page is a readable highlight of the landmark decisions.
Three summary-judgment briefs over about five months contained 15 fabricated case citations and 8 fabricated quotations. After opposing counsel flagged the errors, the lawyer refiled without verifying the arguments that remained.
The largest U.S. AI-hallucination sanction on record, split between the pro hac vice counsel and local counsel as monetary sanctions plus the opposing side’s attorney fees.
The first widely reported case. A brief opposing a motion to dismiss cited six non-existent decisions generated by ChatGPT, with fabricated names, citations and quotations. Asked to confirm, ChatGPT insisted the cases were real.
The origin of the issue. The court held that attorneys have an affirmative duty to verify every citation before filing, and that using an AI tool does not change that obligation. Counsel were also ordered to send corrective letters to the judges named in the fake opinions.
Not the tool, the review. In each case a lawyer filed a citation no one had read. Courts have been consistent: the duty to verify what you file is the lawyer's, and using AI does not change it. That is the whole reason to keep a record of what AI touched and who reviewed it before it went out the door. See how Candor does that →
One short email per new decision, with the penalty and a link to the source. We send a confirmation first, and every email has a one-click unsubscribe.
We keep only your address and when you signed up. See the privacy policy.
This is a reference summary of publicly reported decisions, compiled from the sources linked on each entry. It is not legal advice and is not exhaustive. Confirm the details against the linked primary sources, and see Charlotin's database for the full record. Entries are added over time.
