The passages in which the court addresses the fabricated authority, verbatim, by document. A bracketed ellipsis marks where a passage was cut for length; nothing else is changed.
Published opinion, 3 December 2025 · source · PDF · 20 pages
Respondents’ attorney filed a brief littered with fabricated cases, a fabricated quotation, and fabricated substantive law.
Respondents, through their attor - ney, have responded. For the reasons to follow, we sanction respondents’ counsel $500 for each fabricated citation and $1,000 for each false quotation or substantive statement of law, for a total of $2,000, payable to the Appellate Court Services Division of the Oregon Judicial Department. We allow respondents an opportunity, however, to submit a brief that is supported by existing law.
Although respondent’s counsel has not acknowl - edged this directly, we recognize the reality that the fabri - cated law in respondents’ brief likely resulted from the use of artificial intelligence. We also recognize that it has become common to refer to cases and principles fabricated by artifi- cial intelligence as “hallucinations”. We reject that terminol- ogy because it obscures both the nature and the seriousness of the situation we face.
The Oregon State Bar has explained: “The most obvious way in which a lawyer could run afoul of Oregon [Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC)] 3.3 [Candor] and 4.1 [Truthfulness] is through the submission of and reliance on unverified and fictitious cases, citations, quotes, or conclusions generated by AI.
Every single time a lawyer relies on false authority, the court will need to take the time to address the situation to, at a minimum, ensure that the public retains confidence that the courts are not relying on fabricated law.
As described more fully in our show cause order, there are two fabricated case citations, and one fabricated statement of law attributed to an existing case, so we sanction respondents’ counsel in the amount of $2,000.
In requiring this certification, the court does not intend to preclude counsel 1 See, e.g., Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P., 114 Cal App 5th 426, ___, 336 Cal Rptr 3d 897, ___ (2025) (imposing a “conservative sanction of $10,000” payable to the “clerk of this court within 30 days,” reasoning that “[a]ttorney Mostafavi’s fabricated citations and erroneous statements of law have required this court to spend excessive time on this otherwise straightforward appeal”); Shahid v. Esaam, 376 Ga App 145, 149, 918 SE2d 198, ___ (2025) (explaining that the court would impose a $2,500 frivolous motion penalty which is the most the law allows under Court of Appeals Rule 7(e)(2)); In re Baby Boy , No.
Kadince, Inc., 571 P3d 812, 816 (Utah Ct App 2025) (ordering payment of donation of $1,000 to “ ‘and Justice for all’ within fourteen days * * * and file proof of pay - ment with this court”). Court decisions addressing false precedent generated by artificial intelli- gence are compiled at https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/. Cite as 345 Or App 301 (2025) 307 from using services such as Westlaw and Lexis to conduct legal research, or from using standard spelling and gram - mar checking functions of any word processing program.
Published opinion, 3 December 2025 · source · PDF · 20 pages
Respondents’ attorney filed a brief littered with fabricated cases, a fabricated quotation, and fabricated substantive law.
Respondents, through their attor - ney, have responded. For the reasons to follow, we sanction respondents’ counsel $500 for each fabricated citation and $1,000 for each false quotation or substantive statement of law, for a total of $2,000, payable to the Appellate Court Services Division of the Oregon Judicial Department. We allow respondents an opportunity, however, to submit a brief that is supported by existing law.
Although respondent’s counsel has not acknowl - edged this directly, we recognize the reality that the fabri - cated law in respondents’ brief likely resulted from the use of artificial intelligence. We also recognize that it has become common to refer to cases and principles fabricated by artifi- cial intelligence as “hallucinations”. We reject that terminol- ogy because it obscures both the nature and the seriousness of the situation we face.
The Oregon State Bar has explained: “The most obvious way in which a lawyer could run afoul of Oregon [Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC)] 3.3 [Candor] and 4.1 [Truthfulness] is through the submission of and reliance on unverified and fictitious cases, citations, quotes, or conclusions generated by AI.
Every single time a lawyer relies on false authority, the court will need to take the time to address the situation to, at a minimum, ensure that the public retains confidence that the courts are not relying on fabricated law.
As described more fully in our show cause order, there are two fabricated case citations, and one fabricated statement of law attributed to an existing case, so we sanction respondents’ counsel in the amount of $2,000.
In requiring this certification, the court does not intend to preclude counsel 1 See, e.g., Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P., 114 Cal App 5th 426, ___, 336 Cal Rptr 3d 897, ___ (2025) (imposing a “conservative sanction of $10,000” payable to the “clerk of this court within 30 days,” reasoning that “[a]ttorney Mostafavi’s fabricated citations and erroneous statements of law have required this court to spend excessive time on this otherwise straightforward appeal”); Shahid v. Esaam, 376 Ga App 145, 149, 918 SE2d 198, ___ (2025) (explaining that the court would impose a $2,500 frivolous motion penalty which is the most the law allows under Court of Appeals Rule 7(e)(2)); In re Baby Boy , No.
Kadince, Inc., 571 P3d 812, 816 (Utah Ct App 2025) (ordering payment of donation of $1,000 to “ ‘and Justice for all’ within fourteen days * * * and file proof of pay - ment with this court”). Court decisions addressing false precedent generated by artificial intelli - gence are compiled at https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/. Cite as 345 Or App 301 (2025) 307 from using services such as Westlaw and Lexis to conduct legal research, or from using standard spelling and gram - mar checking functions of any word processing program.