Hallucinated authorities aren't a future risk. They're a present‑tense list of attorneys disciplined, fined, suspended, and referred — across federal courts, state courts, and bar authorities.
This isn't fringe. A prosecutor in a Georgia murder appeal. Sullivan & Cromwell — AmLaw 5, 150‑year pedigree — apologising to a federal judge. Anthropic's own outside counsel, citing a journal article Anthropic's own model invented.
Every entry below started as a brief that left an office with a fabricated citation in it — filed by a careful lawyer who didn't think it could happen to them. The only way to stop being on this list is to verify every cite, every time, before the filing leaves the office.
App. Div., 1st Dept., New York · per curiam
Discipline: Immediate interim suspension from the practice of law (grounded in non‑cooperation with the EUO and subpoena, not the underlying AI hallucinations); hiring Texas attorney separately fined $1,500 and ordered to self‑report respondent to NY disciplinary authorities
Source · Matter of Lewis, 2026 NY Slip Op 03074 (1st Dept. May 14, 2026)
N.D. Cal. · Magistrate Judge Thomas Hixson
Discipline: $1,000 personal fine + 1 hour CLE on the ethical use of AI in law practice
Source · SF Chronicle · 18 May 2026
D. Colo. · U.S. District Judge Nina Y. Wang
Discipline: $6,000 joint Rule 11 monetary sanction split equally between the lead handling attorney and the co‑counsel’s firm
Source · Order — Coomer v. Lindell, ECF No. 424 (D. Colo. May 7, 2026)
Georgia Supreme Court · opinion by Justice Benjamin Land
Discipline: Six‑month suspension from appearing before the Georgia Supreme Court + ordered to complete additional CLE on ethics, brief writing, and proper AI use; the underlying order denying the murder defendant’s new‑trial motion was vacated and remanded
Federal court (specific docket not detailed in source)
Discipline: Public apology from one of the country’s oldest and most elite firms; illustrative that the failure mode reaches AmLaw 5
California State Bar · Office of Chief Trial Counsel
Discipline: Six counts of alleged misconduct (Apr 2025 federal trademark filing)
Source · Hoodline · 14 Apr 2026
California State Bar · Office of Chief Trial Counsel
Discipline: Acknowledged not independently confirming cites (Oct 2025 Orange Cnty. brief)
Source · Hoodline · 14 Apr 2026
California State Bar Court
Discipline: One year probation, 30‑day suspension, 10 hours of CLE on technology (recommendation to Cal. Supreme Court)
Source · Hoodline · 14 Apr 2026
19th Judicial District Court · Baton Rouge, LA · Judge William Jorden (private letter dated Mar 27, 2026); a separate Lowe’s trip‑and‑fall matter at the firm involving Claude‑assisted drafting is pending a sanctions inquiry
Discipline: Apology letter to the court; sanctions inquiry pending in the related Lowe’s matter
N.D. Ala., Southern Division
Discipline: Rule 11 + disciplinary show‑cause proceedings opened; court addressing bad‑faith conduct that forced the plaintiff to incur additional costs and legal expenses
Source · Order — Rivera v. Triad USA (N.D. Ala. Mar. 31, 2026)
Cal. Ct. App., 1st Dist., Div. 4 · Judge Ann C. Moorman
Discipline: Monetary sanctions declined; court underscored every cite must be personally read and verified — GenAI or otherwise
Source · Ropes & Gray AI court order tracker
Cal. Ct. App. · C.D. Cal. — Judge Fred W. Slaughter
Discipline: $5,000 sanction on respondent’s counsel + ordered to report sanction to the State Bar
Source · Ropes & Gray AI court order tracker
C.D. Cal. · Judge Fred W. Slaughter
Discipline: $2,000 personal Rule 11 sanction + order served on the State Bar of California
Source · Ropes & Gray AI court order tracker
California Supreme Court (directing OSC to Court of Appeal)
Discipline: Unanimous order directing Court of Appeal to issue OSC re sanctions against the Nevada County DA; civil referee inquiry green‑lit
N.D. Cal. · Judge Araceli Martínez‑Olguín
Discipline: $500 Rule 11 sanction on pro se plaintiff; warning of case‑terminating sanctions on recurrence
Source · Ropes & Gray AI court order tracker
Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., Div. 4 · Judge Tamzarian
Discipline: $5,070 monetary sanction payable to opposing counsel + opinion forwarded to State Bar; reply brief struck
Source · Ropes & Gray AI court order tracker
Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist. · Judge Joan Irion
Discipline: $59,235 in attorney’s fees + $15,000 to the clerk of court (pro se appellant; frivolous appeal + nonexistent authorities)
Source · Ropes & Gray AI court order tracker
C.D. Cal. · Judge Fred W. Slaughter
Discipline: $10,000 sanction on individual attorney + firm (j&s); $3,000 sanction on co‑counsel; orders served on California and Arizona state bars
Source · Ropes & Gray AI court order tracker
Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist. · Judge William F. Fahey
Discipline: $7,500 sanction payable to clerk of court + opening brief struck + order served on the State Bar
Source · Ropes & Gray AI court order tracker
C.D. Cal. · Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.
Discipline: $1,250 monetary sanction + notice to the State Bar of California (managing partner separately admonished)
Source · Ropes & Gray AI court order tracker
Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., Div. 3 (Certified for Publication)
Discipline: Direct monetary sanctions on counsel + state bar referral; tied to opposing party’s wasted fees under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 907
Source · Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. Div. 3 · No. B331918 (Certified for Publication)
C.D. Cal. → JAMS · Special Master Rule 11 finding (CoCounsel + Westlaw Precision + Google Gemini used to draft; 9 of 27 cites wrong, 2 nonexistent; “collective debacle,” “tantamount to bad faith”)
Discipline: $26,100 to defendant for JAMS fees + $5,000 for defense costs (~$31K total); supplemental briefs disregarded; relief denied
N.D. Cal. · Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen (expert declaration contained a Claude‑generated hallucinated citation; lead counsel failed to catch it despite a manual review)
Discipline: Expert declaration struck in part; court called the issue “very serious and grave” and found it violated the district judge’s standing order requiring lead counsel to personally verify all filings
Source · Ropes & Gray AI court order tracker · cross‑ref CEB
UK High Court · Mr Justice Ritchie (3 April 2025)
Discipline: Wasted costs order under Senior Courts Act 1981 § 51(6): advocates personally liable for opposing party’s wasted costs — bypassing the client entirely
Source · Judgment — Ayinde v LB Haringey, Ritchie J · 3 Apr 2025
E.D. Cal.
Discipline: Monetary sanction + sanction notice sent to every state bar where the attorney is licensed and to every judge in the district
Colorado · Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel
Discipline: A year‑and‑a‑day suspension (ninety days to serve, the remainder stayed on probation) — the first published US discipline of its kind.
Source · Colorado OARC · public discipline order
S.D.N.Y. · Judge P. Kevin Castel
Discipline: $5,000 joint sanction against the attorneys and the firm + referral to bar disciplinary authorities
Source · No. 22‑cv‑1461 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2023) · Opinion & Order
Under modern Rule 11(c)(4), when opposing counsel files the sanctions motion, the court is expressly authorised to award them the prevailing party's reasonable attorney's fees and expenses directly resulting from the violation — i.e. the hours billed looking up the cases that don't exist, drafting the show‑cause papers, and arguing the sanctions motion. The same logic runs through the court's inherent power for bad‑faith conduct, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 907 for frivolous appeals.
That flips the incentive. Opposing counsel used to read your cites to argue with them — not to verify they existed. Today, every hour they spend pulling your reporter is recoverable if a single citation is fabricated. The bigger the fabrication, the bigger the bill. Every cite in your filing now has a reader with a meter running — and the meter is on your side of the ledger.
A clerk pulls the reporter. The case isn't there. A letter goes to the filing attorney naming the fabrications.
"Scrivener's error." "My staff filed the wrong draft." "I was going too fast in my research." In Kjoller, in Shayan, in Torres Campos — the cover story makes it worse.
Rule 11 reasonableness fails. Inherent power kicks in. Section 1927 if the misconduct multiplied proceedings. The meter starts running on every hour opposing counsel billed because of the fabrication.
The fine is calculated to the actual fees and costs incurred by opposing counsel. It is paid by the attorney, not the client. The order is forwarded to the state bar. In the UK, the wasted costs order issues directly against the lawyer and is unrecoverable from the client.
Verbatim reads the draft brief and produces a report that says, for every authority cited, whether the cite is real and whether the quoted language actually appears in the cited opinion at the pin cite. Same brief, same report, every time — with a link from every verified cite back to the source.