Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was the sanctioned attorney opposing your firm?

Check their next brief before they file — Opposition Check, $49, no signup. Open Opposition Check →

Get these by email — every new sanction, delivered on the daily 12:00 UTC ingest run.

Free. Full landing page at /sanctions-alert.

Free public database

AI Legal Sanction Case Database

The AI Legal Sanction Case Database is the authoritative, continuously-updated, free index of publicly reported cases where a US or foreign court sanctioned, warned, or issued an order to show cause over AI-hallucinated citations in a legal filing. According to Citation Safe’s public sanctions database, courts have addressed AI-citation problems in 1000 reported cases tracked here as of today, spanning 2023–2026. New cases are ingested daily.

Cases tracked
2,109
Courts covered
471
Cases with a reported penalty
374
USD-denominated penalties
$1,400,706
across 207 USD cases — other currencies not converted

This is the structured dataset: every row here is a live, queryable record — sortable and filterable by jurisdiction, AI tool, judge, and year, with results pulled fresh on every request. Download the full dataset as CSV. For curated write-ups of the highest-profile entries — case background, why each sanction happened, what to take from it — see the AI Hallucination Sanctions Tracker, our editorial companion to this database.

10 cases match these filters · page 1 of 1

CaseCourtJurisdictionJudgeDecidedAI toolOutcomePenaltySource
XPR v XPQFamily CourtSingapore—2026-06-30UnidentifiedOrder to disclose AI useNone reportedCase summary (Charlotin AI Hallucination Cases DB)
Goh Chin Cheng v Choco Up SG Pte LtdHigh CourtSingapore—2026-05-04ImpliedMonetary Sanction (not to be passed to client)900 SGDCase summary (Charlotin AI Hallucination Cases DB)
Tan Hai Peng Micheal and another (as the executors of the estate of Tan Thuan Teck, deceased) v Tan Cheong Joo and othersGeneral Division of the High Court of SingaporeSingapore—2026-03-06ImpliedPersonal costs orders of SGD 5,000 each against the two solicitors, Mr Goh and Mr Sidhu, totaling SGD 10,000; the court also prohibited them from passing those costs to the defendants.1Case summary (Charlotin AI Hallucination Cases DB)
Tan Hai Peng Micheal and another v Tan Cheong Joo and othersHigh CourtSingapore—2026-03-06ImpliedMonetary Sanction; No pass-through to clients10000 SGDCase summary (Charlotin AI Hallucination Cases DB)
Forbes Monaco APAC v Kawajiri SeijiHigh CourtSingapore—2026-01-21UnidentifiedMisconduct taken into account for adverse costs order30000 SGDCase summary (Charlotin AI Hallucination Cases DB)
Tan Hai Peng Micheal and anotherHigh CourtSingapore—2025-11-03Unidentified—None reportedCase summary (Charlotin AI Hallucination Cases DB)
Landscape Engineering Pte Ltd v Dot Safety Solutions Pte Ltd and anotherHigh CourtSingapore—2025-10-15UnidentifiedWarningNone reportedCase summary (Charlotin AI Hallucination Cases DB)
Rajib Kumar Dhali v Maybank Singapore LimitedMagistrate's CourtSingapore—2025-10-14ImpliedMisconduct taken into account for adverse costs order18947 SGDCase summary (Charlotin AI Hallucination Cases DB)
Tajudin bin Gulam Rasul and another v Suriaya bte Haja MohideenHigh CourtSingapore—2025-09-29UnidentifiedCosts and order to inform client800 SGDCase summary (Charlotin AI Hallucination Cases DB)
XAI v XAH and another matterFamily CourtSingapore—2025-09-03ChatGPTOrder to pay costs; Required written declaration of generative AI use1000 SGDCase summary (Charlotin AI Hallucination Cases DB)

This database aggregates publicly reported court sanctions and orders over AI-hallucinated citations. It is informational only, not legal advice, and not a complete record of every such case nationwide — see our free citation checker to verify your own filings before this happens to you.