Sanctions — Week of 2025-11-17

39 AI-hallucination sanctions decided between 2025-11-17 and 2025-11-23 (ISO week 2025-W47). 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: 39
With monetary penalty: 9 of 39
Courts: 37
ISO week: 2025-W47

Outcomes this week

Warning11
.1
Additional Costs1
Admonishment1
Admonishment; Warning1
Bar Referral1
Cost Order And Public Admonishment1
Costs Order + Fine; One Attorney Ordered To Withdraw1
Costs Order; Bar Referral1
Decision Was Removed From Acat Website1
Guilty1
Monetary Sanction1
Monetary Sanction, Bar Referral1
Monetary Sanction; Five Educational Presentations/cle Requirement; Bar Referral1
Monetary Sanction; Referral To The Bar; Motions Stricken Without Leave To Refile1
Monetary Sanction; Refusal To Anonymize Counsel's Identity1
Motion For Reconsideration Denied; Court Identified The Cited Case/citation As Nonexistent/miscited And Rejected Reliance On It.1
Multiple Filings Stricken From The Record; Revocation Of Online Upload Privileges1
Order To File A Sworn Statement -03 Listing Accurate And Improper Citations1
Public Reprimand; Revocation Of Pro Hac Vice Privileges; Order To Serve Order On Clients; Diffusion Of Order To Counsel's Bars1
Request For Reconsideration Denied1
Show Cause1
Show Cause Order1
Tribunal Found The Cited 'british Columbia Fraudulent Transactions Act' Does Not Exist And Declined To Consider Or Add Fraud Claims Based On It.1

AI tool implicated

Implied28
Unidentified6
ChatGPT3
Bard1
ChatGPT-4, OpenAI, Claude, Clear Brief, Lexis Nexis & Westlaw1

This week’s read-across

39 rulings landed on the docket between 2025-11-17 and 2025-11-23. The most common recorded outcome this week was Warning (11 of 39). Of the 39 rulings, 9 carried an explicit monetary penalty in the ruling text.

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.

Nearby weeks

← Prev: 2025-W46 (26)Next: 2025-W48 (28) →

Get the Sanctions Alert — a new issue every time a ruling lands.

Free double-opt-in newsletter. Case, sanction, fake cites, lesson. No promotional content.

Subscribe (free) →Verify your own brief

All weekly digests Full sanctions database Verify your own brief →

Informational only. Not legal advice. Data derived from public court records; corrections at /contact.