Keith Powell v. Employment Dep. & First Congregational Church of Portland
CA Oregon · Feb 11, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA Oregon
- Record ID
- keith-powell-v-employment-dep-first-congregational-church-of-portland-2026-02-11
- Observed outcome
- The court affirmed the board's decision and ordered the petitioner to pay a $500 monetary sanction to the Appellate Court Services Division.
- Known monetary consequence
- $500
Why this matter warrants attention
The Oregon Court of Appeals sanctioned a pro se petitioner $500 for submitting briefs containing fabricated case law and inaccurate quotations. The court found that the petitioner failed to verify his citations, which were generated using AI-assisted research tools, and that this conduct violated certification requirements under ORCP 17 C(1), resulting in a waste of judicial resources.
Fabricated: Case Law | Briefs contained several citations to completely fabricated cases that could not be located in any Oregon law reporter or database; court found them nonexistent and declined to consider them. || False Quotes: Case Law | Briefs included multiple purported quotations the court could not find in the cited Oregon cases or elsewhere in Oregon law; quotations were determined to be inaccurate or nonexistent. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Claims cited cases that were unrelated to the propositions for which they were cited, i.e., inaccurately applied or misrepresented precedents.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Oregon, with the listed outcome: Monetary Sanction.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Administrative
- Appellate
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- AI-assisted legal research sites
- Known monetary consequence
- $500
- Procedural posture
- Appellate review of an Employment Appeals Board order; the court affirmed the board's decision and imposed a monetary sanction on the petitioner.
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
Petitioner admitted using AI-assisted legal research sites.
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Confirm that every authority actually supports the proposition for which it is offered.
- Escalate and correct a suspect filing promptly, with a documented response.