Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases database passed 2,000 decisions.

Let the record reflect

Dive into the data

• Every state and D.C. has at least one decision. Rhode Island, South Dakota, and West Virginia have one each; Alaska and New Hampshire two.
• No decision involving a lawyer yet in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, or West Virginia.
• Federal courts publish more searchable orders, so the 68% federal share partly reflects what can be found. The data does not show that state-court practice is safer: state courts handed down three of 2026’s ten largest dollar sanctions against lawyers.
• Appellate courts are in the record too: the Second Circuit’s grievance-panel referral in Park v. Kim (January 2024), the Fourth Circuit’s public admonishment in In re Nwaubani (March 2026), the Nebraska Supreme Court’s dismissal of an appeal in Prososki v. Regan (March 2026), the Sixth Circuit’s $30,000 in fines in Whiting v. City of Athens (March 2026), the Ninth Circuit’s six-month suspensions in Lnu v. Blanche (June 2026), and the California Court of Appeal’s published $10,000 sanction in Noland v. Land of the Free (September 2025).

The pro se majority, briefly

• 817 of the 1,378 U.S. decisions (59%) involve a pro se party. The most common recorded outcome is a warning (413); 59 involve a dismissal of some kind; 41 record a monetary outcome, median about $600 where an amount is stated.
• This site focuses on lawyers because professional duties create a different accountability question. The pro se majority is an access-to-justice story that deserves its own study.

In the lawyers’ own words

“I didn’t know AI could do that” appears in 22 of 450 orders (5%). Counting each decision once, the ignorance family — didn’t know, thought it was a search engine, first time using AI — covers 35 (8%). Four of them:

Four takeaways

• Courts mostly do not record which product it was. Only 86 orders name the product (ChatGPT 35, legal research platforms with an AI layer 23, Gemini or Google 7, Claude 4, Copilot 2). That share, one in five, has been flat since mid-2025. The sanction turns on what the lawyer did after the output arrived, not on where it came from.
• Most of the lawyers caught were solo or in small firms.

  Firm size of the 395 private-practice lawyers placed in one band

  The orders themselves state firm size only 16% of the time; the rest comes from dockets, filings, and firm and bar records (method in About).

• The first order is not always the last. Thirty-seven of the 420 lawyers identified appear in more than one order, thirteen of them only because one case produced two. For the rest, the record shows what happened after a court had already spoken:

  First order regarding the lawyer	What followed
  Facey v. Fisher (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Sept. 15, 2025): sanctions under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 against the plaintiff’s lawyer, with the defendants’ fees, in an order noting that federal judges had already warned him (“This conduct cannot go unaddressed and without consequences.”)	Five orders in six months. Two weeks later a District of New Jersey warning (Kertesz v. Colony Tire, Sept. 30, 2025: “It is sanctionable conduct”); in December, $6,000, a self-report to the New Jersey and New York licensing authorities, and copies to the client (Gardner v. Combs, Dec. 15, 2025), then the consolidated complaint dismissed without prejudice, with thirty days to amend, after an opposition brief that “continued to use fabricated citations” (Hildebrandt v. SiParadigm, Dec. 31, 2025); in March 2026 a public admonition from the Southern District of New York: “[T]he warnings and sanctions by the courts, as well as the CLE courses, did not have an appreciable impact” (Cartagena v. Dixon, Mar. 10, 2026)
  LiveVideo.AI Corp. v. Redstone (S.D.N.Y.): an earlier grievance-committee referral	June 2026: $85,056 in fees, and the lawyer referred to the district’s grievance committee “again”
  Withers v. City of Aberdeen (N.D. Miss.): show-cause hearing, Jan. 20, 2026	March 2026: the same lawyer filed two more documents citing nonexistent cases in a Louisiana bankruptcy court and was sanctioned there on Apr. 9 (In re Wise, Bankr. W.D. La.); the Mississippi sanctions order of June 8, 2026 notes it
  Coomer v. Lindell (D. Colo.): $3,000 sanctions, July 2025	March 2026: a second show-cause order proposing a “graduated amount of $5,000” “for their continued failure to check their citations”; imposed May 2026

• It is not a novice problem. The failures span the career ladder, from 0 to 56 years of practice. Of the 420 lawyers identified, 394 have a bar-admission year we could verify. At the date of the first order against each of them, the median lawyer had been admitted for 21 years. More than half (54%) had 20 years or more.

  Years since first bar admission, at the first order

The mutation problem

A check that asks only whether the case exists catches one kind of error. The Princeton taxonomy of citation hallucinations, built from actual filings, has five categories, and an existence check catches only one of them: the case that does not exist. The other four survive it: a name and a reporter citation that “refer to two different real cases,” a page that “does not support the quoted language,” a quotation that “does not appear in the cited case,” and a real case that “does not support the proposition.” In 32 of the 450 orders on lawyers (7%), the lawyer told the court that some of the citations had been checked; the rest had not.

In Concord Music Group v. Anthropic (N.D. Cal. May 23, 2025), a lawyer had the right article and the right link and asked Claude to put the citation in proper form. Back came the right journal and year with “a fictitious article name with inaccurate authors (who have never worked together).” The AI’s process transformed the citation from correct to incorrect, and nobody noticed until it was filed. “That is a plain and simple AI hallucination,” the magistrate judge wrote, and yet “the underlying article exists, was properly linked to and was located by a human being using Google search.”

• Parker v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (W.D. Wash. Nov. 7, 2025): drafting with a legal-specific AI tool, “the cases offered by Counsel do exist and some generally stand for the propositions attributed to them through hallucinated quotations. But the quotations Counsel included do not actually exist.” $3,000 to the court, the defendant’s fees, a public reprimand, and a bar referral.
• TOV Realty, LLC v. Suarez (Conn. July 31, 2026): the lawyer wrote accurate documents and used ChatGPT to edit them; “unbeknownst to [the lawyer], the drafts produced by ChatGPT added new case citations or altered existing case citations.” Six hours of CLE and donations to the Connecticut Bar Institute.

Verify every citation after the final AI-assisted pass, including editing and formatting.

Legal research tools still require review

• Retrieval lowers the error rate; it does not remove it. The retrieval-based platforms in the 2025 Stanford study hallucinated less often than the general chatbots in the 2024 study, on different tasks and definitions; the 2025 study’s own summary is “no panacea.” Vendor headlines have promised more than the release text (sources below).
• A citator signal does not establish that a quotation or proposition is accurate. “Linked and Shepardized” means the case exists and carries a citator flag. Whether it says what the AI’s sentence claims, and whether it is good law for that proposition, require reading the case.

The check, in three steps

1. Confirm the authority exists. Find it on CourtListener, Google Scholar, the court’s own website, or a subscription service, under the citation given.
2. Compare the quotations and pincites. Every quoted phrase must appear on the page cited; every pincite must land on the words it stands for.
3. Read for the proposition and the treatment. The case must hold what the filing says it holds and still be good law. No checker replaces this step.

By role

Open yours.

Citation checkers have proliferated

• Most check existence; few check the quotation or the proposition. Sixteen products are listed below, alphabetically, with what each says it checks. Step 1 is well covered; steps 2 and 3 — the failures that have drawn level with the invented case in lawyer filings — are not.
• Nothing here was tested. Every entry is the vendor’s own description as read on Sept. 2, 2026, and vendor accuracy claims are not repeated. Before uploading a filing to any of them, read the retention and training terms and consider client confidentiality and privilege.
• Foundation models are not a complete answer either. In the one independent benchmark (Princeton, June 2026), the best-recall system caught about 84% of planted citation errors but raised many false alarms (F1 55%); the best-balanced system caught 63% (F1 69%); every model did worst on wrong pincites. A checker is a screen for step 1, not a substitute for steps 2 and 3.

“Yes” is the vendor’s description; “as reported” means independent press coverage. Where reporting and the product page differ (Shepard’s Verify: “cited authority exists and is retrievable” in reporting, versus “flagging unsupported statements” on the product page), the table follows the reporting. No tool in the table can take on the filer’s responsibility to verify.

The largest amounts against lawyers

Every figure above was read out of the order itself. The database records Rivera at $35,603 (the larger of its two awards), LiveVideo at $80,056 (the order says $85,056), and Mattox as a single $28,495.

Money is the minority outcome

The ceiling so far

• Suspension from practice before a court (9 of 450 orders, 2%): six months (Ninth Circuit; Supreme Court of Georgia); one year from the bar of the Middle District of Florida (In re Neusom, 2024); two years from any case in the Northern District of Mississippi (Withers, 2026), and two years from cases assigned to one judge of that district (Billups, 2025).
• Bar suspension on the merits: one, in Colorado in 2023 (one year and one day, ninety days served). A California State Bar Court recommendation of February 2026 (a stayed one-year suspension) awaits the Supreme Court of California.
• Disbarment: none found in any U.S. jurisdiction as of September 2, 2026 (search scope in the sources). The Seventh Circuit told one lawyer in June 2026 that “the next time any incident occurs, he could be subject to disbarment before this court.”

Reported outcomes after referral to the bar

• Candor sets the price. The Ninth Circuit’s six-month suspensions were imposed less for the fabricated citations than for the lawyers’ “repeated failure of candor” about them; a prompt admission and apology, the court said, might have warranted less. The Eastern District of Oklahoma credited a lawyer’s “candor” and chose $3,000 over what it called “professional ruin.”
• Pro hac vice revocations have proved durable. In Mavy v. Commissioner (D. Ariz. Jan. 2026), a district judge vacated a magistrate judge’s Rule 11 finding and most of the sanctions, and left in place the two that require no bad faith: the brief stayed struck and the lawyer stayed out.
• Clients are being told. Forty-two orders required the lawyer to send the client a copy; seven ordered fees refunded or forfeited, including an appointed appellate lawyer in Illinois who disgorged the full fee the county had paid.
• Unverified but reported: a thirty-day suspension of a Minnesota lawyer (Minnesota Public Radio, Aug. 21, 2026) and a six-month suspension from practice in the Middle District of Pennsylvania (a Pennsylvania litigation blog, July 2026). We could not obtain either order.

Opposing counsel has a verification duty too

• Missed the defects. Noland v. Land of the Free (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 12, 2025): $10,000 against the appellant’s lawyer for a brief in which 21 of 23 quotations were fabricated — and no fees to the respondents, who had not noticed and “appear to have become aware of the issue only when the court issued its order to show cause.”
• Warned, not sanctioned. Nuvola, LLC v. Wright (Minn. Dist. Ct. Nov. 20, 2025): $1,000 against the lawyer who filed the fake cases, and, while expressly declining to sanction his opponent, a reminder that the duty to check runs to the cases in a brief you are answering.
• Both sides sanctioned. Withers v. City of Aberdeen (N.D. Miss. June 8, 2026): four lawyers sanctioned, two per side, after both lead counsel filed AI-drafted documents with hallucinated cases and both local counsel signed without reading. “This case presents the Court with an unusual scenario—attorneys for both litigants engaged in similar sanctionable conduct.” The trial, set for March, was cancelled.

How the warning changed, 2025–26

Five sentences, verbatim and in date order, from a district court’s first warning of 2025 to the latest appellate one.

What the sharp language is for

• The harshest orders go to lawyers who were not candid: who denied using AI and then admitted it, who answered a show-cause order with a second filing full of invented quotations, or who blamed a paralegal, a relative, or a software update. Lack of candor was the aggravating factor courts noted most often (144 of 450), tied with the burden on the court.
• Seventeen of the 22 orders (77%) in which the lawyer admitted the problem at once were coded measured, and several say so. The Eastern District of Oklahoma credited a lawyer’s “candor” and chose a $3,000 fine over “professional ruin.” The Ninth Circuit said a prompt admission and apology might have warranted less than the six-month suspension it imposed.
• Later orders repeatedly cite a small group of earlier sanctions decisions when selecting a remedy: 243 of 450 (54%) cite at least one.

What each is cited for

In the citing courts’ own parentheticals where we have them.

In one court’s words

“We expect that when lawyers submit briefs, they give us their best view of what the law is, and how that law supports their clients. We read those briefs carefully—not just because they are the product of counsel’s time, effort, and skill, but because they help us as we try to reach the right answer. All that is lost if a lawyer decides that it is not worthwhile to do the work to persuade us—if he is willing to sign his name on whatever a machine churns out without so much as checking it for accuracy. We cannot do our job the same way unless lawyers do theirs. Whatever the merits of artificial intelligence, it is no substitute for actual intelligence.”Akerlund v. Atlas Air, Inc., No. 24-11033 (11th Cir. July 10, 2026) (Grant, J.), a published opinion, which announced a referral of the lawyer to the court’s Committee on Lawyer Qualifications and Conduct

Has any one judge seen enough of these to change tone?

Not yet. In the 450 orders, one decision-maker appears five times, the general counsel of the Government Accountability Office in bid protests, and three judges appear four times: district judges in the Western District of Texas, the District of Columbia, and the District of Kansas. At four or five orders there is no trend to report. What the repeats show is judges settling on a standard paragraph: the District of Columbia judge’s four orders, over ten months, each advise the lawyer in nearly the same words that “it is not acceptable to submit filings to the Court containing nonexistent cases and quotations.”

The rules and authorities that matter

The ABA Model Rules are models; the version adopted in the lawyer’s jurisdiction governs, and the numbering and wording vary.

Which authority applies: five questions

Using AI neither establishes nor excuses a violation; it bears on the remedy. A sanctions order, and the response to a show-cause order, turn on five questions that decide which authority applies and what the court has to find.

The remediation checklist courts keep reproducing comes from Wadsworth v. Walmart: withdraw promptly, be candid about the AI use, pay the other side’s fees for the tainted filing, adopt training and safeguards.

What the ABA and the state bars said

Find the bad citations

Each passage is presented as it was filed, or as the court reproduced it. A citation can fail four ways:

• the case does not exist;
• the case exists but the quotation is not in it;
• the case exists and is quoted correctly but does not stand for the point;
• the citation itself is wrong even though the authority is real.

The tells, and the checks

Eight patterns that gave the filings away in the orders we read, each paired with the check that would have caught it. Tap a card to turn it over.

For transactional lawyers

The database is a record of courtrooms because a courtroom is where a false citation gets caught: opposing counsel found the problem in 42% of the 450 orders on lawyers, the court itself in 52%. A contract has no such reader until it is performed or litigated. Four things in the record bear on deal work.

What to check, translated from the orders

1. Every authority, the same three steps. Does the statute, rule, or case exist; does it say what the draft says; does it support the point. Of the 450 orders, 128 involved no invented case, and 101 of them carry a real-case defect: misquoted, cited for something it does not hold, matched to the wrong reporter citation, or pinned to the wrong page.
2. Every cross-reference and defined term. A cross-reference is a citation to the document itself. After any AI pass, confirm that each “Section 9.4” exists and says what the sentence assumes, that each capitalized term is defined, and that no defined term was silently renamed. Do it on the final text, not the draft the model was given.
3. Every summary against the text. A number, a deadline, a notice period, or a carve-out in an AI summary is a quotation without quotation marks. Check each one against the clause it stands for before it reaches a client or a signing memo.
4. Precedent clauses and “market” claims. A model asked for a customary clause will produce a plausible one, and asked whether a term is market will answer. Pull the clause from a real precedent you can open, and treat a “market” claim as an assertion with no source until you find one.
5. Keep the drafts. The mutation cases were caught because someone could compare the version that went into the model with the version that came out. Keep both, and diff them.
6. Supervision is the same duty. The signing partner’s obligation to check the associate’s brief (Rules 5.1 and 5.3, and the show-cause orders that enforce them) applies to the associate’s markup. Delegating to a tool is delegating.

The database

• What it is. Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases is a public list of court and tribunal decisions “where the use of AI, whether established or merely alleged, is addressed in more than a passing reference by the court or tribunal,” limited to cases where the court “explicitly found (or implied)” that a party relied on hallucinated content. Its earliest entry is a Brazilian electoral-court decision of April 2023; the first American entries follow that June. It now covers 40 countries.
• Who decides. Charlotin does not decide whether a filing was hallucinated; the courts do. In his words: “I am not making that judgment, I let the courts and judges make or imply it, which is why the database is necessarily an undercount.” The briefs quietly withdrawn, the fabrications nobody checked, the footnote mentions: none of those are here.
• What each row holds. Case name, court, state, date, the party responsible (pro se, lawyer, judge, expert), the product where named, an itemized list of what was false (fabricated, misrepresented, false quotes, outdated), the outcome, the monetary penalty, whether a professional sanction followed, and a link to the decision where one is available.
• Flags. Nineteen rows (1% of 2,008) are marked as alleged rather than established; twelve (0.6%) carry a vendor-dispute flag; no row carries both. All 31 are counted in the totals, as the database counts them.
• Disclosure. Charlotin also markets a citation-checking tool, PelAIkan. It appears in the checker roundup on the same terms as everything else. He has not reviewed this site and is not responsible for anything in it.

Method

• The reading. Each of the 477 orders was read under a written codebook asking the same fixed questions (who used the AI, how, what explanation was offered, who caught it, what the court did, what authorities it relied on, what other decisions it cited, and what its register was), by one model reader, one pass per order, with the key answers required to quote the passage that supported them. No order was coded twice; register, motive, and explanation fields are one reader’s judgment.
• The checking. 1,565 of the 1,586 quotations the reader produced matched the order text after both were reduced to letters only; the 21 that did not are not used anywhere. Every case name, citation, date, dollar figure, and quotation in the prose was then checked again against the order itself, the docket on CourtListener’s RECAP archive, a court’s own website, or the issuing body’s publication, and the built site was audited and proofread by a second model. Where only press coverage could be found, the text says so. Where nothing could be found, the claim was dropped.

Scope and limitations

• An undercount, and a lag. The database is one person’s reading of the world’s courts, in the languages he reads, from the sources that reach him; in his own words, an undercount. Counts by decision date understate the most recent weeks, which are still being added. The projections on the milestone page are arithmetic on trailing rates, not forecasts of behavior.
• One reader, 450 orders. The coded set covers 449 of 546 U.S. rows on lawyers (82%). The register of an order is a reader’s judgment: the coding was done by a model and checked by quotation, not by a second human reader, and the categories are the ones the codebook offered.
• Left out on purpose. Names of the lawyers sanctioned, except where a case caption is itself a lawyer’s name and the matter is bar discipline of public record (captions are cited as they appear on the public docket, and a caption that names a firm or a party is not redacted); names of small firms and solo practices; any claim about a lawyer’s intent beyond what a court found; any figure from a vendor about its own product’s accuracy; any citation this site could not open.
• Firm size and experience are distributions, not rates. The firm-size and years-since-admission figures on The circumstances describe the lawyers identified in the collected cases. The database has no denominator for briefs filed, lawyers practicing, or AI-assisted work produced, so those figures cannot say which lawyers are more likely to file false authority. The database also tags three rows as lawyer cases that the dockets show were pro se filings; this site counts them as pro se.
• Searches, not proofs. Negative findings (“no disbarment,” “no AI-specific CLE requirement”) cover public news, bar, and court sources through September 2, 2026, and absence from those sources is not proof of absence. Two claims in circulation were searched for and not found: that a lawyer has been disbarred for this, and that fee awards in early 2026 reached a particular six-figure sum. Two reported suspensions we could not verify (Minnesota; the Middle District of Pennsylvania) are mentioned on the cost page with their source and nothing more.

Credits

This project is built on Damien Charlotin’s freely available AI Hallucination Cases database and the years of work behind it. The 2,000-decision milestone belongs to that record.

• Thanks to Mary E. Matuszak, Director of Library Services at the New York County District Attorney’s Office, whose posts on these decisions as they arrive keep the profession reading them.
• Thanks to Mark Pike, whose Oyez AI? game in the amicus project, which shows one Supreme Court case caption a day and asks whether it is real or generated, inspired the training exercises on this site.
• Built by Kyle Bahr, Claude Fable 5.1, and OpenAI Codex 5.6 Sol. Kyle set the scope and the editorial rules; Claude researched, coded, drafted, and checked; Codex independently audited the built site, proofread it, and researched firm size and years since bar admission beyond the orders; Kyle reviewed it.
• Last updated September 5, 2026.