Couvrette v. Wisnovsky
D. Oregon · Mar 23, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The court sanctioned plaintiffs and their counsel for submitting AI-generated briefs containing fifteen non-existent cases and eight fabricated quotations. The court struck the briefs, imposed a $15,500 penalty on lead counsel, awarded $94,704 in attorney's fees and costs to defendants, and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that the submission of non-existent cases and fabricated quotes violates Rule 11(b)(2) and degrades the integrity of the court. It determined that counsel has a non-delegable duty to verify legal contentions and that the plaintiffs shared responsibility due to their active role in drafting the filings. The court concluded that terminating sanctions were necessary to deter future misconduct and maintain the rule of law.
- Why it matters now
- Hallucinated briefs can lose the case — $109K in sanctions and dismissal with prejudice is the worst-case AI outcome.
Why this matter is tracked
In a tort litigation, the District of Oregon sanctioned plaintiffs and their counsel after they submitted multiple briefs containing fifteen non-existent cases and eight fabricated quotations. The court determined that the plaintiffs' lead counsel, Mr. Brigandi, failed to perform a reasonable inquiry into the law, violating Rule 11(b)(2). The court found that the plaintiffs shared responsibility for the misconduct, noting evidence that the plaintiff, Ms. Couvrette, likely used artificial intelligence to draft the filings. The court struck the offending briefs, ordered counsel to pay a $15,500 penalty to the court, awarded reasonable attorney's fees and costs to the defendants (totaling $94,704), and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice as a terminating sanction for the egregious abuse of the judicial process.
Hallucinated briefs can lose the case — $109K in sanctions and dismissal with prejudice is the worst-case AI outcome.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
Plaintiffs admitted reliance on an automated legal citation tool.
Opinion and Order on Defendants' Motion for Sanctions following the submission of multiple briefs containing fabricated legal authorities.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited a non-existent case in their briefs (one of fifteen such fabricated citations identified across ECF Nos. 142, 155, and 168); the Court stated the cited cases do not exist.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs misrepresented a quotation from a real case in their briefs (one of seven such misquotes identified across ECF Nos. 142, 155, and 168); the Court flagged the quotations as misrepresented.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Couvrette v. Wisnovsky?
- The court sanctioned plaintiffs and their counsel for submitting AI-generated briefs containing fifteen non-existent cases and eight fabricated quotations. The court struck the briefs, imposed a $15,500 penalty on lead counsel, awarded $94,704 in attorney's fees and costs to defendants, and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice.
- Why does Couvrette v. Wisnovsky matter for legal AI risk?
- Hallucinated briefs can lose the case — $109K in sanctions and dismissal with prejudice is the worst-case AI outcome.
- What does the public record establish about Couvrette v. Wisnovsky?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this Couvrette v. Wisnovsky summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.