Published opinion, 2 October 2026 · source · PDF · 9 pages
Rules of the Supreme Court: Attorney and Client. Regardless of the source, submitting a brief riddled with fabricated citations is a betrayal of an attorney’s duty of candor and a violation of the Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct. 3.
Jarrod appealed. On appeal, Jarod filed a brief that contained citations to fictitious cases and inaccurate propositions of law. We struck the brief and, for this reason, review only for plain error.
However, Jarrod has failed to provide any cognizable reason why the district court was in error. In addition, his brief contains numerous citations to fictitious cases and misstatements of law, which are the result of his admitted use of generative artificial intelligence (AI). In light of these deficiencies, we strike Jarrod’s brief and have elected to review for plain error.
Finding none, the ruling of the district court is affirmed. Use of AI and Fictitious Citations [2] In our recent case, Prososki v. Regan , 321 Neb.
Regan , 321 Neb. 38, 32 N.W.3d 593 (2026), we addressed the then-novel issue of what consequences await an attorney who submits an appel- late brief containing citations to inaccurate legal authority and fictitious case law. We held that, regardless of the source, sub- mitting a brief riddled with fabricated citations is a betrayal of an attorney’s duty of candor and a violation of the Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct.
451 of the bar. As such, we take this opportunity to state in no uncertain terms: regardless of whether a party is represented or self-represented, submission of a brief that contains mis- statements of law or relies upon nonexistent legal authority is an abuse of the judicial process worthy of sanctions. Having concluded Jarrod has engaged in sanctionable con- duct, we must next determine what sanction is appropriate.
App. 2024) (dismissing pro se party’s appeal and awarding partial attorney fees where party cited to fictitious case law). This sometimes includes imposing a lesser sanction on a self-represented party.
It is the responsibility of all parties not to undermine the integrity of the courts and erode public trust in their opinions by asking them to render decisions premised upon falsehoods. Jarrod’s brief is riddled with fabricated citations and quota- tions, and we decide that the striking of his brief is appropriate. However, we exercise our discretion to review his assignments for plain error.