Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Sanctions — Week of 2026-02-23

30 AI-hallucination sanctions decided between 2026-02-23 and 2026-03-01 (ISO week 2026-W09). 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
30
With monetary penalty
3 of 30
Courts
22
ISO week
2026-W09

Week over week: 30 sanctions filed the week of 2026-02-23 vs 27 sanctions the prior week (2026-02-16) — up 3 from the prior week.

Outcomes this week

  • Warning10
  • Order To Show Cause3
  • Bar Referral2
  • Affirmed In Part; Reversed In Part; Remanded (libel Claim As To “meth House” Reversed For Further Proceedings).1
  • Appeal Dismissed; Appellant To Bear Her Own Costs On Appeal.1
  • Case Dismissed With Prejudice1
  • Contempt Finding; Brief Struck; Monetary Sanction1
  • Court Found The Cited Precedents Nonexistent, Treated The Conduct As A Serious Professional Fault But—because The Attorney Admitted The Error—declined To Impose Sanctions For Litigância De Má-fé Or To Refer The Matter Administratively; Underlying Sentence (payment Of Court Costs) Was Upheld.1
  • Dismissed1
  • Formal Admonishment1
  • Monetary Fine1
  • Struck Filings; Monetary Sanction1

AI tool implicated

  • Implied29
  • Unidentified1

This week’s read-across

30 rulings landed on the docket between 2026-02-23 and 2026-03-01. The most common recorded outcome this week was Warning (10 of 30). Of the 30 rulings, 3 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.

All rulings, week of 2026-02-23

Horton v. Colvin

CA Alabama · Decided 2026-02-27 · Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded (libel claim as to “meth house” reversed for further proceedings). · AI tool: Implied.

Read the full teardown →

Luiz Carlos Barboza Neves v. Banco Bradesco S.A.

TJ Rio de Janeiro · Decided 2026-02-23 · Court found the cited precedents nonexistent, treated the conduct as a serious professional fault but—because the attorney admitted the error—declined to impose sanctions for litigância de má-fé or to refer the matter administratively; underlying sentence (payment of court costs) was upheld. · AI tool: Implied.

Read the full teardown →

Courts represented this week

Nearby weeks

← Prev: 2026-W08 (27)Next: 2026-W10 (32) →

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 digestsFull sanctions databaseVerify your own brief →

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