Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Sanctions — Week of 2026-06-08

35 AI-hallucination sanctions decided between 2026-06-08 and 2026-06-14 (ISO week 2026-W24). 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
35
With monetary penalty
11 of 35
Courts
16
ISO week
2026-W24

Week over week: 35 sanctions filed the week of 2026-06-08 vs 30 sanctions the prior week (2026-06-01) — up 5 from the prior week.

Outcomes this week

  • Warning5
  • Admonishment2
  • Adverse Costs Order2
  • Order To Show Cause2
  • Adverse Costs Order; Bar Referral1
  • Bar From Filing Without Leave1
  • Bar Referral1
  • Court Acknowledged The Opposition Contained Citations To Non-existent Cases, Found The Legal Propositions Cited Were Nonetheless True, Declined To Attribute Those Non-existent Citations To Appellate Counsel For Paez Rodriguez, And Imposed No Sanction.1
  • Court Admonished The Defense Lawyer For Using Ai-created Jurisprudence And Determined To Send Copies Of The Decision And Case To The Ordem Dos Advogados Do Brasil (oab) For Possible Action; Warned That Use Of Ai-created Jurisprudence May Lead To Non-consideration Of The Resource.1
  • Court Ordered Mr. Bradford Klager And His Law Firm Hilliard Law Jointly And Severally Liable For $10,000 In Attorney's Fees To The City Of Austin (and To Provide A Copy Of The Order To His Client).1
  • Decline To Add New Sanctions1
  • Monetary Fine; Bar Referral1
  • Monetary Sanction1
  • Monetary Sanction; Adverse Costs Order1
  • Monetary Sanction; Bar Referral1
  • Monetary Sanction; Notice To Client1
  • Monetary Sanction; Struck Filing1
  • Order To Amend Brief1
  • Order To Correct Motion1
  • Public Reprimand; Monetary Sanction; Firmwide Citation Review; Cle1
  • Revoked Pro Hac Vice; Dq Resident Attorneys From The Case; Monetary Fine; Bar Referrals1
  • Trial Court's Order Vacated1

AI tool implicated

  • Implied22
  • Unidentified9
  • Eve Legal1
  • First Drafts1
  • Google AI1
  • Grok1

This week’s read-across

35 rulings landed on the docket between 2026-06-08 and 2026-06-14. The most common recorded outcome this week was Warning (5 of 35). Of the 35 rulings, 11 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 2026-06-08

Vargas v. MTA Bus Co.

N.Y. Sup. (New York County) · Decided 2026-06-12 · Court acknowledged the opposition contained citations to non-existent cases, found the legal propositions cited were nonetheless true, declined to attribute those non-existent citations to appellate counsel for Paez Rodriguez, and imposed no sanction. · AI tool: Implied.

Read the full teardown →

Courts represented this week

Nearby weeks

← Prev: 2026-W23 (30)Next: 2026-W25 (20) →

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.