Sanctions — Week of 2024-08-19

3 AI-hallucination sanctions decided between 2024-08-19 and 2024-08-25 (ISO week 2024-W34). Every ruling below is sourced from the public docket — case name, decided date, outcome, AI tool implicated (when named), and any monetary penalty language pulled verbatim from the ruling.

Week at a glance

Total rulings: 3
With monetary penalty: 0 of 3
Courts: 2
ISO week: 2024-W34

Outcomes this week

Lawyer Ordered To Show Cause Why She Should Not Be Referred To The Bar1
Referral To The Victorian Legal Services Board And Commissioner For Potential Disciplinary Review; No Punitive Order Issued By The Court Itself; Apology Accepted.1
Warning, And Order To File Further Submissions With Declaration1

AI tool implicated

Implied1
LEAP1
Unidentified1

This week’s read-across

3 rulings landed on the docket between 2024-08-19 and 2024-08-25. The most common recorded outcome this week was Lawyer Ordered To Show Cause Why She Should Not Be Referred To The Bar (1 of 3). No rulings this week specified a dollar-figure monetary penalty in the docket text — but bar referrals, adverse-costs orders, and case-standing consequences apply regardless.

Implied was the most-implicated AI tool this week (courts rarely require the attorney to name the tool by product name on the record; “Implied” means the ruling described an AI-generated brief without a product name).

The pattern each week is remarkably stable: existence failures (Layer 1) dominate. Attorneys file briefs containing citations that do not exist in any primary source — usually because a general-purpose LLM fabricated the citation and no deterministic pre-filing check caught it. Every ruling below is a preventable filing. See /verify for the pre-filing tool.