reportAI GovernanceAI in CourtsSRA & UK Regulation
After the referral: what bars, law societies and the SRA have done about AI misuse, 2024 to 2026
48 matters before regulators in 7 countries: 5 dispositions verified from the regulator's own document (7 rows), 4 reported, 36 open; the fastest took 104 days.
Edited and verified by Cognesio LLP
Researched with AI assistance · sources verified by Cognesio LLP · How this was made ↓
When a court in England, Ontario, Victoria or Alabama finds that a lawyer put AI-fabricated authority before it, the order usually ends with a referral: to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, a law society, a state bar or a grievance committee. What happens next is the least visible part of the record, because regulators publish little, slowly, and in different places. This report follows every referral in the SafeLegalAI incident tracker to whatever the regulator has done with it. As of 5 September 2026 there are 48 such rows across seven countries. Seven rows, carrying five distinct dispositions, have an outcome that can be read in the regulator’s own document. Four have a disposition reported in the press or recorded without an outcome. Thirty-six are open. One records regulator action that predated the conduct.
The regulators are not silent on the subject. The tracker holds 76 documents issued by bars, law societies and legal-services regulators on AI in practice, 20 of them in the first eight months of 2026, and the SRA’s warning notice of 17 August 2026 was written against the referrals it holds. The gap this report measures is between what regulators say lawyers must do and what they have published about lawyers who did not. Every figure is computed from the incident and regulation collections by the script in the run log; the data is exported at /tracker/incidents.json and /regulation/documents.json.
Key findings
- As of 5 September 2026, 48 of the tracker’s 150 rows carry a
regulatoryOutcome: a referral to, self-report to, or disposition by a professional regulator. They name 41 distinct regulator entries as recorded (about 38 named bodies once entries naming several regulators are split, 26 of them in the US) in seven countries, led by the United States (29 rows), the United Kingdom (6 rows: SRA 4, BSB 3, one row naming both), South Africa (3), Brazil (3), Australia (3) and Canada (3). - Five rows have a disposition verified from the regulator’s own published decision: the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner’s variation of a solicitor’s practising certificate (19 August 2025, after Dayal); the four-state reciprocal chain of public reprimands and a censure of one lawyer (Texas 4 November 2025, Tennessee 15 December 2025, Alabama 6 March 2026, Oklahoma 27 May 2026, after Johnson v Dunn); the Law Society Tribunal of Ontario’s six-month suspension with CAD 10,000 costs (Law Society of Ontario v Lee, 16 July 2026, after Ko v Li); the USPTO’s public reprimand by settlement (final order 27 July 2026, In re Mitchell); and the Dutch bar disciplinary council’s formal reprimand with EUR 1,250 costs (27 July 2026, ‘s-Hertogenbosch 2026:93).
- Four rows have a disposition reported but not read in a primary document, or an investigation with no recorded outcome: a petition for a stipulated 30-day suspension in Minnesota (reported 21 August 2026); a reported suspension in Nebraska (after Prososki v Regan); a State Bar Court recommendation in California (after Noland); and the Law Society of British Columbia’s investigation after Zhang v Chen, whose outcome is unrecorded.
- Where the interval can be measured, a regulator’s first decision took between 104 and 422 days from the court’s order: 104 days to the Texas reprimand after Johnson v Dunn, 308 to the Oklahoma reciprocal reprimand, 357 from the Dayal referral to the Victorian variation, and 422 from the first Ontario contempt ruling to the tribunal’s suspension decision.
- No disposition has been published by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the Bar Standards Board, the State Bar of California, The Florida Bar, the Legal Practice Council of South Africa or the Brazilian bar on any row in the tracker. Those six bodies hold 15 of the 36 open referrals (17 rows in all, counting Bandla and Noland), the oldest of them (Ayinde, BSB and SRA) fifteen months old.
- Four of the five verified dispositions were short of suspension: a practising-certificate variation, four public reprimands or censures, a public reprimand by settlement and a formal reprimand. The one verified suspension is Ontario’s six months; the Minnesota and Nebraska suspensions are reported only.
- Two matters reached a regulator without a court referral: Pinsent Masons’ self-report to the SRA after Cork v Smith (May 2026), and the Dutch Dean’s complaint that produced the ‘s-Hertogenbosch reprimand. Two more began as court-ordered self-reports (Dehghani v Castro, to New Mexico and Texas; UK v SSHD, where a second adviser escaped referral by self-reporting first).
- The regulators’ own guidance has moved from general to specific: 7 bar or law-society documents in 2023, 25 in 2024, 24 in 2025, 20 to September 2026, dated by newest version. The SRA’s August 2026 warning notice, the BSB’s May 2026 guidance and the Law Society of NSW’s January 2026 guide each name verification as the duty, and each now has referrals on its desk that turn on it.
Why this question
A referral is what a court does when it has finished with the fabrication and turned to the person. It is also where the public record stops. The court’s order is on CourtListener, BAILII or AustLII within days; the regulator’s decision, if there is one, may appear a year later on a decisions page, in a tribunal’s reasons, in a press release, or not at all. Vendor “sanctions trackers” count the referrals and stop. This report counts what came of them, because that is the number a lawyer weighing the risk, a firm writing a policy, or a regulator deciding whether its own process is fast enough, actually needs.
Method and data
The dataset is the incident collection, 150 records as of 5 September 2026, filtered to the 48 with a regulatoryOutcome field (body, disposition text, date). Regulator entries are counted as recorded in the regulatoryOutcome.body field (41 distinct strings); where a field names several bodies (“BSB / SRA”, “Oklahoma, Texas, Tennessee, Alabama”) the named-body count splits them and merges provincial or sectional offices of one regulator, giving about 38. The 76 regulator guidance documents are the regulation records whose issuing body matches a bar, law society, solicitors or bar-standards regulator, legal practice council or OAB (the exact expression is in the run log script), dated by newest version; the site’s wider bar-guidance category, which also holds court and ministry documents addressed to lawyers, returns 93 and is not the filter used. Each row’s disposition was read and classified by hand into four states: referral or notice with nothing further on record; disposition verified from the regulator’s own document (a published decision, order or register entry that the tracker has read); disposition reported (press or a document the tracker could not open); and regulator action predating the conduct. The regulator-guidance figures come from the regulation collection (324 records) filtered to bodies whose name identifies a bar, law society or legal-services regulator: 76 records (the filter expression is in the run log).
Time to disposition is measured from the date of the court decision that made the referral (the tracker row date) to the date of the regulator’s decision as published; where the first court decision in a matter differs from the referral (Ko v Li), the earlier date is used and stated. Regulators that do not publish are recorded as “no disposition on record”, which is not a finding that nothing happened.
Limits. The tracker records court decisions it has verified, so the 48 are a selection of referrals worldwide, not a census. Regulator publication practices differ: the SRA publishes decisions after they are made and searchable by name, the Law Society Tribunal publishes reasons on CanLII (which blocks automated access), state bars publish in bulletins or on member-lookup pages, and several bodies publish nothing. Four of the five reported dispositions are exactly that: reported, and flagged in the tracker as unverified until the primary document is retrieved. Named lawyers appear only where the court or regulator has published the name.
The 48 referrals by state of the record
| State of the record | Rows | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Referral or notice, nothing further on record | 36 | 75% |
| Disposition verified from the regulator’s document | 7 | 15% |
| Disposition reported, or investigation without recorded outcome | 4 | 8% |
| Regulator action predated the conduct | 1 | 2% |
The seven verified rows carry five distinct dispositions: Johnson v Dunn and OBA v Reeves are one matter (the referral and the reciprocal chain it produced), as are Ko v Li and Law Society of Ontario v Lee.
The 36 open rows are not evenly aged. Fourteen date from 2024 or 2025 and are between nine and thirty-one months old on 5 September 2026 (Park v Kim, 2d Cir., January 2024; Mavundla, South Africa, January 2025; Valu, NSW, January 2025; Dehghani, April 2025; Bevins, April 2025; Mid Central, May 2025; Ayinde, June 2025; Northbound Processing, June 2025; MS Bangladesh, August 2025; JNE24, August 2025; In re R.A., Iowa, October 2025; Mezu, October 2025; UK v SSHD, November 2025; Couvrette, December 2025). Twenty-two date from 2026, and 18 of those from July, August or September 2026, which is younger than any disposition in the record.
The five verified dispositions
Victoria, Australia. In Dayal (27 August 2024) a Federal Circuit and Family Court judge referred a solicitor to the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner over non-existent authorities that, on the tracker’s reading of the judgment, were generated by the AI feature of the solicitor’s practice-management software. On 19 August 2025 the VLSB+C varied the certificate and on 2 September 2025 published a statement: the solicitor’s practising certificate was varied so that he may no longer practise as a principal, may not handle trust money or operate his own practice, may practise only as an employee, and must complete two years of supervised practice with quarterly reporting. It is the earliest regulator disposition in the record and the only one that changed the terms of a licence rather than reprimanding its holder.
Texas, Tennessee, Alabama and Oklahoma. In Johnson v Dunn (N.D. Ala., 23 July 2025) the court publicly reprimanded and disqualified counsel over five ChatGPT-generated citations in two motions and served its order on the Alabama State Bar. The lawyer who had obtained the citations self-reported to every state in which he was admitted on 25 July 2025. The Board of Disciplinary Appeals of the Supreme Court of Texas issued an agreed judgment of public reprimand on 4 November 2025; the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee a public censure on 15 December 2025; the Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama State Bar a public reprimand on 6 March 2026; and the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, in State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v Reeves, 2026 OK 37 (27 May 2026), a public reprimand under its reciprocal-discipline rule, recording the three prior dispositions with their dates.The Oklahoma court held that a lawyer who knowingly uses AI to generate citations and knowingly does not verify them has knowingly made a false statement.
USPTO. The Office of Enrollment and Discipline publicly reprimanded a registered patent attorney by settlement (executed 20 July 2026, final order 27 July 2026, reported by IPWatchdog on 28 August 2026) for a claim-construction chart prepared with two AI tools whose citations to the patent’s own record were inaccurate. It is the only disposition in the record from a federal licensing body rather than a state bar.
Ontario. The Law Society Tribunal, in Law Society of Ontario v Lee, 2026 ONLSTH 136 (16 July 2026), accepted a joint submission and suspended the lawyer in Ko v Li for six months from 17 July 2026 with CAD 10,000 costs, finding professional misconduct that included misleading the court and the Law Society about who had drafted a ChatGPT-fabricated factum; its reasons record that the criminal-contempt proceeding referred to the Attorney General remains ongoing. It is the only verified suspension in the record and is reported as the first law-society suspension for AI misuse in Canada.
Netherlands. The Raad van Discipline in ‘s-Hertogenbosch, on a complaint by the local Dean, found on 27 July 2026 that an advocate who had filed defences containing AI-generated ECLI citations, some non-existent and some pointing to unrelated judgments, had breached the core values of expertise and integrity. It rejected a mere warning, imposed a formal reprimand and ordered EUR 1,250 in costs. It is the only European Union bar disposition in the record and the only one that began with a regulator’s own complaint rather than a court’s referral.
The four reported dispositions
The Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility petitioned the Supreme Court of Minnesota on 21 August 2026 for a stipulated 30-day suspension that the lawyer, whose 2025 memorandum cited two non-existent decisions, had agreed to (MPR News); no order has been located. A suspension of the lawyer in Prososki v Regan (Nebraska, referral 20 March 2026) was reported in April 2026; the tracker has found no disciplinary document. The State Bar of California’s State Bar Court was reported to have recommended a one-year stayed suspension, a year of probation and ten hours of technology education for counsel in Noland; a recommendation is not a disposition until the Supreme Court of California acts on it. The Law Society of British Columbia’s investigation after Zhang v Chen (February 2024) is recorded; its outcome is not.
If the two reported suspensions are confirmed from their primary documents, the record’s verified count moves from five dispositions to seven.
Time to disposition
| Matter | Court decision | Regulator decision | Days |
|---|---|---|---|
| Johnson v Dunn to Texas reprimand | 23 Jul 2025 | 4 Nov 2025 | 104 |
| Johnson v Dunn to Tennessee censure | 23 Jul 2025 | 15 Dec 2025 | 145 |
| Johnson v Dunn to Alabama reprimand | 23 Jul 2025 | 6 Mar 2026 | 226 |
| Johnson v Dunn to Oklahoma reciprocal reprimand | 23 Jul 2025 | 27 May 2026 | 308 |
| Dayal referral to VLSB+C variation | 27 Aug 2024 | 19 Aug 2025 | 357 |
| Ko v Li first contempt ruling to Law Society Tribunal decision | 20 May 2025 | 16 Jul 2026 | 422 |
The Texas figure is the fastest because the lawyer agreed to the reprimand and self-reported two days after the order; the three reciprocal dispositions that followed each waited on the one before. The Victorian and Ontario intervals are the two in which a regulator conducted its own process from referral to decision, and both took close to a year or more. The USPTO and Dutch intervals cannot be measured because the tracker holds no date for the underlying conduct in Mitchell and the Dutch matter arose from a complaint rather than a court decision.
Eight open referrals are older than 422 days, the longest measured time to disposition: Northbound Processing (432 days), Ayinde (456), Mid Central (465), Bevins (513), Dehghani (521), Valu (582), Mavundla (605) and Park v Kim (2d Cir. Grievance Panel, 30 January 2024), which is 949 days old on 5 September 2026 with nothing published.
The referral pipeline by regulator
| Regulator | Rows | Disposition on record | Oldest open referral |
|---|---|---|---|
| Solicitors Regulation Authority (England and Wales) | 4 | none (Bandla’s strike-off predated) | Ayinde, 6 Jun 2025 |
| Bar Standards Board (England and Wales) | 3 | none | Ayinde, 6 Jun 2025 |
| State Bar of California | 3 | reported recommendation (Noland) | Lnu v Blanche, 3 Jun 2026 (Noland is a reported recommendation) |
| Legal Practice Council (South Africa) | 3 | none | Mavundla, 8 Jan 2025 |
| Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil (state sections and Federal Council) | 3 | none | TJPR, 22 Jul 2026 |
| Alabama State Bar | 2 | verified (Reeves, via Johnson v Dunn) | Ibach, 24 Apr 2026 |
| The Florida Bar | 2 | none | JMOR Properties, 12 Aug 2026 |
| Eleventh Circuit Committee on Lawyer Qualifications and Conduct | 2 | none | Akerlund and Parnell, 10 Jul 2026 |
| Law Society of Ontario | 2 (one matter) | verified (Lee, 16 Jul 2026) | closed |
| Connecticut Statewide Grievance Committee and state authority | 2 | none | Tov Realty and Barteca, Jul and Aug 2026 |
| Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner | 1 | verified | closed |
| USPTO Office of Enrollment and Discipline | 1 | verified | closed |
| Raad van Discipline ‘s-Hertogenbosch | 1 | verified | closed |
| Texas, Tennessee and Oklahoma bars (reciprocal) | via Reeves | verified | closed |
| Minnesota OLPR | 1 | reported | closed if confirmed |
| Nebraska Counsel for Discipline | 1 | reported | none open (Prososki is a reported suspension) |
| Law Society of British Columbia | 1 | investigation recorded, no outcome | Zhang v Chen, 20 Feb 2024 |
| NSW Office of the Legal Services Commissioner | 1 | none | Valu, 31 Jan 2025 |
| Legal Practice Board of Western Australia | 1 | none | JNE24, 15 Aug 2025 |
| Oregon State Bar | 1 | none | Couvrette, 12 Dec 2025 |
| Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission | 1 | none | Mezu, 29 Oct 2025 |
| Iowa Attorney Discipline Board | 1 | none | In re R.A., 1 Oct 2025 |
| Ohio Office of Disciplinary Counsel | 1 | none | State v Coleman, 20 Mar 2026 |
| Illinois ARDC | 1 | none | Scott, 28 Jul 2026 |
| New York Attorney Grievance Committee | 1 | none | Kleyman, 4 Aug 2026 |
| North Carolina State Bar | 1 | none | Forney, 3 Aug 2026 |
| District of Columbia Office of Disciplinary Counsel | 1 | none | Douglas, 3 Sep 2026 |
| New Mexico Disciplinary Board; New Mexico and Texas self-report | 2 | none | Dehghani, 2 Apr 2025 |
| Second Circuit Grievance Panel; SDNY Grievance Committee; S.D. Ind. Chief Judge; Pennsylvania and E.D. Pa. bars | 4 | none | Park v Kim, 30 Jan 2024 |
The table has twenty-nine entries; sixteen carry a single row. The concentration is in three places: the two English regulators (six rows between them, five of them open), the State Bar of California (three rows, one reported recommendation) and the Alabama State Bar (two rows, one verified disposition through the reciprocal chain). The bodies with the most referrals are the ones the record shows least about.
England and Wales: six rows, no published disposition
The Divisional Court in Ayinde v Haringey (6 June 2025) referred a barrister to the Bar Standards Board and solicitors to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, stating that the contempt threshold could have been met and that its restraint should not be read as precedent. The Upper Tribunal in MS (Bangladesh) (12 August 2025) referred a barrister to the BSB, finding breaches of the duties of honesty, integrity and competence. In UK v SSHD (17 November 2025) a solicitor and compliance officer was referred to the SRA for failing to supervise a caseworker who drafted fabricated citations with Google’s AI, while a separate adviser escaped referral by self-reporting to the Immigration Advice Authority and the SRA first. In Lodhia v Twelve Trees (24 July 2026) direct-access counsel was referred to the BSB and the litigant himself to the Attorney General. And in Cork v Smith (22 May 2026) Pinsent Masons self-referred to the SRA after a junior solicitor’s AI system invented an Insolvency Rule that the firm quoted to the court.
None has a published outcome. The SRA publishes regulatory decisions on its website once made; the BSB publishes disciplinary findings through the Bar Tribunals and Adjudication Service. As of 5 September 2026 neither carries a decision on any of these matters. What the SRA has published is its warning notice on misuse of AI (17 August 2026), which follows its compliance tips (9 February 2026) and supervision guidance (June 2026), and the BSB its guidance (18 May 2026). Both instruments state the verification duty the courts had already applied. The regulators have written the rule; the record does not yet show them applying it.
Canada, Australia and South Africa
Canada’s three rows contain the record’s earliest referral with no outcome (Zhang v Chen, Law Society of British Columbia, February 2024), its only verified law-society suspension (Lee, Ontario) and the only criminal-contempt referral, which the Ontario Superior Court has not resolved. Australia’s three rows contain the record’s first verified disposition (Dayal, Victoria) and two open referrals to state regulators (Valu to the NSW Office of the Legal Services Commissioner, January 2025; JNE24 to the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia, August 2025). The Australian regulators’ joint statement of 6 December 2024 (VLSB+C, the Law Society of NSW and the LPBWA) and the Law Society of NSW’s guide of 9 January 2026 postdate the Dayal referral and predate the Valu and JNE24 outcomes.
South Africa’s three referrals all go to the Legal Practice Council: Mavundla (KwaZulu-Natal, January 2025), Northbound Processing (Gauteng, June 2025) and FJL v TGO (July 2026), where a full court referred an acting judge on the reasoning that acting judges remain practising advocates subject to the Council rather than the Judicial Conduct Committee. The Law Society of South Africa’s AI committee published revised draft ethics guidelines on 1 July 2026; no regulator has adopted them and the Council has published no disposition.
The United States: 29 rows, one chain
The United States supplies 29 of the 48 rows and 26 of the named bodies, and its record is the most fragmented. The one verified disposition chain (Reeves) shows the reciprocal-discipline machinery working across four states in ten months once one state acted. The reported dispositions (Minnesota’s petition for a stipulated 30-day suspension; Nebraska’s reported suspension; California’s State Bar Court recommendation) are all from 2026. The 23 open rows include referrals from three federal courts of appeals (the Second Circuit’s Grievance Panel; the Eleventh Circuit’s Committee on Lawyer Qualifications and Conduct twice; the Ninth Circuit’s service of its own disciplinary order on the State Bar of California), the Supreme Court of Alabama (Ibach), the Nebraska Supreme Court (Prososki), the Appellate Court of Illinois (Scott), the Court of Appeals of Georgia and the D.C. Court of Appeals, and district courts in Oregon, Indiana, North Carolina, Connecticut and New York.
Two features of the US rows are absent elsewhere. Several courts sanctioned and referred in the same order, so the referral rides on a public reprimand, a fine or a suspension the court imposed itself: the Ninth Circuit in Lnu v Blanche suspended two lawyers from practice before it for six months and then served the order on the state bar. And several referrals are courtesy copies rather than complaints: Tov Realty’s order went to Connecticut’s Statewide Grievance Committee as a courtesy copy that the court said “is not a referral for further disciplinary action”, and Bevins’ memorandum was served on two bars with no direction as to what they should do with it. Whether a courtesy copy opens a file depends on the bar.
The regulators’ own record
The regulation tracker holds 76 documents from bars, law societies and legal-services regulators on AI: 7 issued in 2023, 25 in 2024, 24 in 2025 and 20 in 2026 to September, dated by the newest version of each document. The early documents are general (the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador, February 2023; the SRA’s Risk Outlook, November 2023; the Law Society of British Columbia, November 2023). The 2026 documents are specific about verification and supervision and, in several cases, about consequences: the SRA’s warning notice states its enforcement position; the Bar Council of India’s July 2026 circular prohibits fabricated judgments and fake citations and provides for referral to State Bar Councils; the Sao Paulo bar’s ethics tribunal ruled on 16 April 2026 that partners must supervise associates’ AI use; the Israel Bar’s opinion of May 2024 requires unverifiable AI output to be flagged to the court.
The regulators have also begun to receive matters without a court in between. The Dutch Dean’s complaint is one. Pinsent Masons’ self-report is another. The ABA’s Formal Opinion 512 (29 July 2024) and every one of the 2026 documents make the verification duty a matter of professional conduct in its own right, so a fabricated citation that never reaches a court is, on the regulators’ own account, a disciplinary matter. The tracker records no such disposition, because none has been published.
What to watch
The Ayinde referrals (BSB and SRA, June 2025) are the oldest English matters and the ones most likely to produce the first published disposition from either regulator; the SRA’s warning notice gives its investigators the instrument they lacked when the referral arrived. The State Bar Court’s recommendation in Noland goes to the Supreme Court of California for decision. The Oregon State Bar file in Couvrette, the largest sanctions matter in the tracker, has been open since December 2025. In South Africa, the Legal Practice Council holds three referrals including an acting judge’s, and the Office of the Chief Justice’s draft judiciary policy would give the Judicial Conduct Committee jurisdiction the full court found it lacked.
The number to watch is the verified count. It is five on 5 September 2026. Each open referral has a regulator, a date and a document the tracker is waiting for; the follow-up watch-list carries them.
Three sentences journalists can quote
Of 48 matters that reached a professional regulator, recorded in the SafeLegalAI incident tracker on 5 September 2026, seven rows (five distinct dispositions) can be read in the regulator’s own published decision, four have a disposition reported in the press or an investigation without a recorded outcome, and 36 have nothing on record.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Bar Standards Board hold six rows between them (Ayinde names both), the oldest from June 2025, and have published no decision on any of them; the SRA issued a warning notice on misuse of AI on 17 August 2026.
Where a regulator did decide, it took between 104 days (Texas, on an agreed reprimand) and more than a year (Victoria, 357 days; Ontario, 422 days), and four of the five verified dispositions were a reprimand, censure or licence variation rather than a suspension.
Appendix A: the 48 rows
| Court decision | Date | Jurisdiction | Regulator | State of the record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Park v Kim | 30 Jan 2024 | US federal | 2d Cir. Grievance Panel | open |
| Zhang v Chen | 20 Feb 2024 | Canada | Law Society of British Columbia | investigation recorded; outcome not on record |
| Dayal | 27 Aug 2024 | Australia | VLSB+C | verified: practising certificate varied, 19 Aug 2025 |
| Mavundla v MEC | 8 Jan 2025 | South Africa | Legal Practice Council (KZN) | open |
| Valu v Minister for Immigration | 31 Jan 2025 | Australia | NSW OLSC | open |
| Dehghani v Castro | 2 Apr 2025 | US federal | NM and TX bars (self-report ordered) | open |
| Bevins v Colgate-Palmolive | 10 Apr 2025 | US federal | PA and E.D. Pa. bars | open |
| Bandla v SRA | 13 May 2025 | UK | SRA | strike-off predated the conduct |
| Mid Central v HoosierVac | 28 May 2025 | US federal | Chief Judge, S.D. Ind. | open |
| Ayinde v Haringey | 6 Jun 2025 | UK | BSB and SRA | open |
| Northbound Processing | 30 Jun 2025 | South Africa | Legal Practice Council (Gauteng) | open |
| Johnson v Dunn | 23 Jul 2025 | US federal | Alabama State Bar and others | verified: disposition recorded at OBA v Reeves (same matter) |
| MS (Bangladesh) | 12 Aug 2025 | UK | BSB | open |
| JNE24 | 15 Aug 2025 | Australia | LPBWA | open |
| Noland v Land of the Free | 12 Sep 2025 | US state | State Bar of California | reported: State Bar Court recommendation |
| In re R.A. | 1 Oct 2025 | US state | Iowa Attorney Discipline Board | open |
| Mezu v Mezu | 29 Oct 2025 | US state | Maryland AGC | open |
| UK v SSHD | 17 Nov 2025 | UK | SRA | open |
| Ko v Li | 4 Dec 2025 | Canada | Law Society of Ontario | verified: six-month suspension (tribunal decision 16 Jul 2026) |
| Couvrette v Wisnovsky | 12 Dec 2025 | US federal | Oregon State Bar | open |
| Prososki v Regan | 20 Mar 2026 | US state | Nebraska Counsel for Discipline | reported suspension, no document |
| State v Coleman | 20 Mar 2026 | US state | Ohio ODC | open |
| Ibach v Stewart | 24 Apr 2026 | US state | Alabama State Bar | open |
| Cork v Smith | 22 May 2026 | UK | SRA (self-report) | open |
| OBA v Reeves | 27 May 2026 | US state | TX, TN, AL, OK bars | verified: four dispositions |
| Lnu v Blanche | 3 Jun 2026 | US federal | State Bar of California | open |
| Cartagena v Dixon Blackburn (unverified) | 10 Jul 2026 | US federal | SDNY Grievance Committee | open |
| Parnell v Florida DOC | 10 Jul 2026 | US federal | 11th Cir. Committee | open |
| Akerlund v Atlas Air | 10 Jul 2026 | US federal | 11th Cir. Committee | open |
| Law Society of Ontario v Lee | 16 Jul 2026 | Canada | Law Society Tribunal | verified disposition (same matter as Ko v Li) |
| TJPR 0035599-44 | 22 Jul 2026 | Brazil | OAB/PR | open |
| Lodhia v Twelve Trees | 24 Jul 2026 | UK | BSB | open |
| ’s-Hertogenbosch 2026:93 | 27 Jul 2026 | EU (Netherlands) | Raad van Discipline | verified: reprimand, EUR 1,250 |
| In re Mitchell | 27 Jul 2026 | US federal | USPTO OED | verified: public reprimand |
| Scott v Illinois HRC | 28 Jul 2026 | US state | Illinois ARDC | open |
| Tov Realty v Suarez | 31 Jul 2026 | US state | Connecticut Statewide Grievance Committee | courtesy copy; open |
| FJL v TGO | 31 Jul 2026 | South Africa | Legal Practice Council | open |
| TRT20 Sergipe (unverified) | 3 Aug 2026 | Brazil | OAB | open |
| Forney v Township of Cary | 3 Aug 2026 | US federal | North Carolina State Bar | open |
| Kleyman Law Group v Kaloidis | 4 Aug 2026 | US state | NY Grievance Committee | open |
| Barteca v Tacobarn | 4 Aug 2026 | US federal | Connecticut disciplinary authority | open |
| JMOR Properties v Artist Alley | 12 Aug 2026 | US state | The Florida Bar | open |
| TJSP 1032884-04 | 13 Aug 2026 | Brazil | OAB/SP and Federal Council | open |
| In re Faisal Ahmed (unverified) | 21 Aug 2026 | US state | Minnesota OLPR | reported: 30-day suspension |
| Capital Standard v US Bank | 21 Aug 2026 | US state | The Florida Bar | open |
| NM Supreme Court (Aarons) (unverified) | 21 Aug 2026 | US state | New Mexico Disciplinary Board | open |
| Varma v Bank of New York Mellon | 27 Aug 2026 | US state | State Bar of California (unauthorised practice) | open |
| Douglas v Deutsche Bank | 3 Sep 2026 | US state | D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel | open |
Appendix B: sources
Regulator documents read for the verified dispositions: Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner, statement on the variation of a practising certificate (19 Aug 2025): lsbc.vic.gov.au; State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v Reeves, 2026 OK 37 (27 May 2026), recording the Texas, Tennessee and Alabama dispositions at paragraphs 1 and 5 to 7: Justia, CourtListener; In re Brian E. Mitchell, USPTO Proceeding No. D2026-16, final order: USPTO OED PDF; Raad van Discipline ‘s-Hertogenbosch, ECLI:NL:TADRSHE:2026:93: tuchtrecht.overheid.nl.
Law Society of Ontario v Lee, 2026 ONLSTH 136 (16 Jul 2026): CanLII (blocks scripts); reasons read from a mirrored PDF on 5 September 2026. Reports read for the reported dispositions: MPR News, 21 Aug 2026: mprnews.org; the Noland and Prososki rows’ notes in the tracker.
Court orders quoted in the United States section: Tov Realty v Suarez, sanctions order (Conn.): jud.ct.gov; Bevins v Colgate-Palmolive, memorandum (E.D. Pa.): govinfo.
Court orders making the referrals are linked from each tracker row in Appendix A. Regulator guidance: SRA warning notice, 17 Aug 2026; BSB guidance, May 2026; ABA Formal Opinion 512; the 76 regulator documents sit within the wider bar-guidance category of the Regulation Tracker. SafeLegalAI data: Incident Tracker · incidents.json · The sanctions ledger · Dayal: the first time an AI misuse referral reshaped a lawyer’s right to practise.
Appendix C: changes to this report
None since first publication. Planned: retrieve the Ontario tribunal’s reasons, the Minnesota order and any Nebraska disciplinary document; add a regulator-side date field to the tracker so time-to-disposition is computed rather than read.