Mary McGreevy v. Adam Witkin
SC Oregon · Jun 4, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The Oregon Supreme Court sanctioned a pro se litigant $500 and struck his filing after he admitted to using generative AI to create a response containing fictitious legal citations. The court held that failing to verify AI-generated legal authorities is unreasonable and undermines the integrity of judicial proceedings.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that relying on AI-generated citations without verification is unreasonable and that the inclusion of false precedent undermines the integrity of judicial proceedings.
- Why it matters now
- This case highlights the judicial expectation that litigants, even those appearing pro se, must verify the existence and accuracy of all authorities cited in court filings, regardless of whether those authorities were generated by AI.
Why this matter is tracked
In Mary McGreevy v. Adam Witkin, the Oregon Supreme Court sanctioned respondent Adam Witkin for including fabricated legal citations in a response to a petition for review. Witkin admitted to using generative AI to draft the pleading and failing to verify the accuracy of the generated authorities. The court found that relying on AI-generated citations without verification constitutes an unreasonable failure to ensure the accuracy of court filings. Consequently, the court struck the respondent's filing from the record and imposed a $500 monetary sanction. The court permitted the respondent to refile the response, provided it includes a certification that all cited authorities have been verified for existence and accuracy.
This case highlights the judicial expectation that litigants, even those appearing pro se, must verify the existence and accuracy of all authorities cited in court filings, regardless of whether those authorities were generated by AI.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
Respondent admitted using generative artificial intelligence.
The court issued an order striking the respondent's response to a petition for review and imposing a monetary sanction following a show cause proceeding.
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 | Court could not locate the cited Oregon Appellate Reports opinion Federal National Mortgage Association v. Lemire, 276 Or App 261, 265 (2016) in the Oregon Appellate Reports and flagged it as potentially erroneous.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the cited Oregon Appellate Reports opinion Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Brock, 277 Or App 660, 663 (2016) in the Oregon Appellate Reports and flagged it as potentially erroneous.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Mary McGreevy v. Adam Witkin?
- The Oregon Supreme Court sanctioned a pro se litigant $500 and struck his filing after he admitted to using generative AI to create a response containing fictitious legal citations. The court held that failing to verify AI-generated legal authorities is unreasonable and undermines the integrity of judicial proceedings.
- Why does Mary McGreevy v. Adam Witkin matter for legal AI risk?
- This case highlights the judicial expectation that litigants, even those appearing pro se, must verify the existence and accuracy of all authorities cited in court filings, regardless of whether those authorities were generated by AI.
- What does the public record establish about Mary McGreevy v. Adam Witkin?
- 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 Mary McGreevy v. Adam Witkin 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.