The Oregon Supreme Court today issued orders addressing court filings in two separate cases that included fabricated quotes and citations due to the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI). These orders mark the first time the court has sanctioned litigants for filings with false information attributed to AI.
In the first case, the court dismissed the petition for a writ of mandamus in Aldridge v. Tussing (S072780). In filing their petition, relators included supporting documents that cited nonexistent cases and included fabricated quotes. The court directed relators to confirm the accuracy of each citation, explain how any erroneous citations were included, and demonstrate why the court shouldn’t strike the petition or impose other sanctions.
The relators acknowledged the fabrications, which they attributed to the use of a generative AI service known as “LegalAI.” Relators also acknowledged the strain these mistakes place on the judicial system — only to file another document less than 12 hours later that contained more fabrications. Relators indicated they had relied partly on Google Scholar in their review.
The court struck the petition, struck the response with the fabrications, and dismissed the proceeding entirely. In its order, the court wrote: “The injection of false precedent undermines the integrity of the proceedings. Doing it repeatedly, and in response to a show cause order, warrants imposition of a meaningful sanction.”
In another case, Witkin v. McGreevy (S072692), the court struck a response to a petition for review after the respondent admitted to having used AI that resulted in “fictitious authorities and inaccurate legal arguments.” However, the respondent fully complied with the court’s show cause order and clarified the legitimacy of each citation in the original response. The respondent agreed to a $500 sanction if the court allowed him to file an amended response to the petition for review, which the court granted.
These orders come as Oregon’s two appellate courts are grappling with a noticeable increase in the number of filings containing such fabrications attributed to AI.
Recent news coverage has highlighted instances in which attorneys were sanctioned for filing inaccurate documents resulting from the use of AI. Today’s actions from the Supreme Court make clear the obligation to submit accurate information extends to individuals appearing pro se — that is, representing themselves.
“We recognize that AI products may seem like an appealing short-cut to legal research and presenting legal arguments,” said Meagan A. Flynn, Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court. “But when the court has to spend considerable time and effort addressing fabricated legal arguments, it comes at the expense of other cases.”
On April 29, Court of Appeals Chief Judge Erin C. Lagesen wrote in a public message that the court was receiving “a rapidly escalating number of filings that contained fabricated legal authority likely produced by the use of generative artificial intelligence.”
“These filings are being submitted by lawyers and self-represented litigants alike,” Chief Judge Lagesen wrote. “They create a significant drain on court resources that, at present, appears to be growing.”
The Oregon Judicial Department provides information for lawyers and litigants on its website, including best practices on using AI tools. The State of Oregon Law Library offers online resources to help users with reliable legal research, while the Oregon Law Help portal includes valuable guidance on the use of AI.