Couvrette v. Wisnovsky
D. Oregon · Mar 23, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- D. Oregon
- Record ID
- couvrette-v-wisnovsky-2026-03-23
- Observed outcome
- Briefs struck; $15,500 penalty to the court; $94,704 in attorney's fees and costs awarded to defendants; claims dismissed with prejudice.
- Known monetary consequence
- $110,204
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
Hallucinated briefs can lose the case — $109K in sanctions and dismissal with prejudice is the worst-case AI outcome.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Tort
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- $110,204
- Procedural posture
- Opinion and Order on Defendants' Motion for Sanctions following the submission of multiple briefs containing fabricated legal authorities.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
Plaintiffs admitted reliance on an automated legal citation tool.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.