Published opinion, 11 February 2026 · source · PDF · 10 pages
We affirm. Additionally, at oral argument, employer’s attorney alerted us to fabricated legal citations and quotations in claimant’s briefs and asked for sanctions. In response to our order to show cause, claim- ant acknowledged that some of the authorities cited in his briefs were “inaccurate” and resulted from the use of online search engines and artificial intelligence (AI).
We conclude that sanctions are warranted and order a monetary sanction of $500, payable to the Appellate Court Services Division of the Oregon Judicial Department. FABRICATED AUTHORITY We begin with the issue of claimant’s reliance on fabricated authority because it necessarily informs what authority we can consider when ruling on the merits of claimant’s arguments. At oral argument, employer’s counsel asked, for the first time, that the court sanction claimant on the grounds that claimant’s briefs contained citations to fab- ricated cases and quoted material that could not be found in the cited authority.
Counsel did not point the court to any particular fabricated case or quote but referenced page numbers in the claimant’s briefs.
Employer’s counsel asked that we impose sanc- tions on petitioner by affirming the board’s decision below and awarding fees to respondent. Claimant did not address the allegations of fabricated cases and quotes during oral argument. We re-examined petitioner’s briefs and found sev - eral citations to completely fabricated cases, multiple 58 Powell v.
We re-examined petitioner’s briefs and found sev - eral citations to completely fabricated cases, multiple 58 Powell v. Employment Dept. purported quotations that we could not find anywhere in Oregon case law, and many instances in which claimant cites cases that are unrelated to the proposition for which he cites them. We issued an order to show cause (1) why peti- tioner’s case should not be dismissed and (2) why we should not, on our own motion, impose monetary sanctions for sub- mitting briefs with nonexistent case law and quotations.
In response to the order to show cause, claimant acknowledged that his briefs contained citations and quotations that were “inaccurate.” He explained that those errors were “inadver- tent and stemmed from misunderstanding the reliability of the sources used, including online search engines and AI[-]assisted legal research sites.” Claimant stated that he accepted full responsibility for the errors and emphasized that he did not fabricate any authority intentionally.
ORCP 17 D(1). Here, claimant was on notice that the process he used—AI-assisted or otherwise—in drafting the briefs sub - mitted to this court could produce fabricated authority. In his response to the order to show cause, claimant stated that, after the time for briefing in this case had concluded, he became aware of fabricated citations in his briefs for sep- arate civil cases.
Despite having been alerted to issues in his legal research and writing processes sev - eral months before oral argument was heard in this case, claimant did not contact this court to attempt to amend his briefs. He also made no mention of potential issues with his briefs in his opening argument and did not address employ- er’s allegations of fabricated authority when it was his turn for rebuttal. Claimant also fails to grapple with how his reliance on fabricated authority prejudiced employer.