Published opinion, 18 March 2026 · source · PDF · 13 pages
J. Petitioner’s opening brief contains fabricated case citations, purported quotations that do not exist anywhere in Oregon case law (attributed to various cases, some fab - ricated and others not), and inaccurate descriptions of the proposition for which certain cases stand. We issued an order to show cause in which we directed petitioner to show cause “(1) why [petitioner’s] brief should not be stricken in part or in whole and (2) why this court should not, on its own motion, impose monetary sanctions for submitting a brief to this court that contains nonexistent caselaw and nonexis - tent quotations.” That show cause order is attached to this opinion as Appendix 1.
Colquhoun Design Studio, LLC, 345 Or App 301, 582 P3d 695 (2025), we were faced with the task of deciding what to do “when an attor - ney signs and submits a brief to this court that contains false case citations and a false statement of law.” Id. at 303. Although counsel in that case did not directly acknowledge that the fabricated law in the brief resulted from the use of artificial intelligence, we recognized that that was likely the reality. Id.
Those reason are that (1) “it is a breach of the attorney’s profes - sional duties,” (2) “it strains our limited judicial resources,” and (3) “by building and submitting arguments based on nonexistent cases and principles of law, and by failing to 1 ORCP 17 C(3) states that “[a]n attorney certifies that the claims, defenses, and other legal positions taken in the pleading, motion or other document are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, mod - ification or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law.” ORCP 17 applies to the appellate courts by way of ORAP 1.40(4), which adopts it as a rule of appellate procedure.
We turn to the facts of the situation at hand. While the panel was preparing for oral argument on the merits of this matter, it came to the court’s attention that in petition- er’s opening brief there were case citations to nonexistent cases and quotations that did not exist anywhere in Oregon case law. At the beginning of the scheduled oral argument, the Presiding Judge of the panel asked petitioner’s counsel for an explanation about the fabricated law contained in the brief.
3 Although counsel had filed many extensions of time, counsel had not been informed that no further time extensions would be granted for the filing of his opening brief—the record contains no such communication from the court. Regardless, we do not think that is relevant to counsel’s ultimate decision to file a brief filled with fabricated citations. 746 Doiban v.
Counsel reports that “if one asks Google’s search engine whether many of the fabricated cases are real, it will generate a response using its artificial intelligence search engine, affirming that the fabricated case are in fact real.” Counsel represents that he and the law firm have taken steps to address the errors, ensure accountability, and prevent any recurrence.
Petitioner’s counsel requests that we not impose sanctions, stating that sanctions are warranted when an attorney knowingly submits false authority or acts in bad faith, which, in his view, is not what happened here. Although we appreciate counsel’s apology and explanation of how the fabricated case citations and quotations came to be in the opening brief, we have concerns about petitioner’s counsel’s lack of action to correct the fabricated citations and quotations until the court raised the issue. Respondent’s counsel raises at least one point that we agree is noteworthy.
The problem with that stance, how - ever, is that the fabricated citations were called to counsel’s attention by respondent’s counsel in an email dated April 3, 2025, before respondent’s answering brief was filed.4 In addi- tion, the answering brief, filed on April 16, 2025, contains a footnote stating that there were case citations in the open - ing brief that “counsel has been unable to locate by name, reporter citations, or quoted text.” Petitioner’s counsel report- edly did not respond to the email from respondent’s counsel and did not address the fabricated citations and quotations in the reply brief, or otherwise seek to correct the citations.