Incident Tracker

Legal AI incidents · United States (federal)

45 verified incidents · as of 2026-09-04

2026-08-28Fine
Booker v. The Kroger Co.
The US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia fined employment plaintiff's lawyer Christopher Johnson USD 8,000, payable to the court's sanctions fund, for citing four nonexistent or misrepresented authorities. Judge Grimberg found his show-cause response evasive and an attempt to shift blame to opposing counsel, required proof of ethics and technology CLE, and reserved further sanctions.
2026-08-27Fine
Adams v. Matrix Providers
The US District Court for the District of Colorado fined counsel Ms Pearson USD 1,000 after her brief cited a nonexistent case and attributed a quotation to Justice Scalia from an opinion dated 2020, four years after his death. Judge Sweeney's order is on CourtListener RECAP; the available summary does not record whether counsel admitted using generative AI.
2026-08-27Warning
Ashmeade v. Amazon.com Services LLC
In the Southern District of New York, self-represented plaintiff Keith Ashmeade cited two nonexistent Southern District decisions while litigating discovery issues against Amazon. Magistrate Judge Reznik identified the false citations, warned that future filings with false or nonexistent legal authorities may draw sanctions, and tied the warning to Rule 11 duties for pro se litigants.
2026-08-27Pending
James v. Conley
In the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, a magistrate judge found that plaintiff's Fifth Amended Complaint pleaded nonexistent police-training publications that counsel conceded were AI hallucinations. The report recommended denying the defendants' Rule 11 motion on safe-harbour grounds but referring the signing attorneys to the court's attorney-grievance committee; the district judge's ruling is pending.
2026-08-27Warning
Williams v. Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport Board
In the Northern District of Texas, plaintiffs' counsel cited nonexistent and materially inapposite cases while trying to defeat qualified immunity. Judge Pittman called the effort borderline sanctionable, warned that generative-AI misrepresentations of law may trigger Rule 11 sanctions, and dismissed the civil-rights claims against the airport-board defendants.
2026-08-26Warning
Johnson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC
In the District of Maryland, self-represented plaintiff Darrin Johnson again cited a case the court could not locate, after an earlier Rule 11 warning. Judge Rubin said the authority appeared to be hallucinated from generative AI, dismissed the action without prejudice and warned that continued use of hallucinated authorities risks sanctions.
2026-08-26Warning
Potterf v. Wessels
In the Eastern District of Michigan, self-represented plaintiffs admitted using artificial intelligence to draft objections with fictitious or erroneous citations and an invented Supreme Court quotation. Judge Leitman denied relief based on the defective objections and warned that future papers with false, hallucinated or inaccurate citations could bring sanctions, including dismissal.
2026-08-26Warning
Shelbert v. Baxter International, Inc.
In the Northern District of Illinois, Tyler Shelbert's lawyer filed a motion to strike that relied on a false reading of Instituto Nacional de Comercializacion Agricola. Judge Hunt inferred AI-assisted drafting, denied the motion, admonished counsel and warned both sides that false or hallucinated citations may lead to sanctions.

SafeLegalAIrecords: safelegalai.com/tracker/us-federal · CC BY 4.0