Mary McGreevy v. Adam Witkin
SC Oregon · Jun 4, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- SC Oregon
- Record ID
- mary-mcgreevy-v-adam-witkin-2026-06-04
- Observed outcome
- The court struck the respondent's response to the petition for review and imposed a $500 monetary sanction.
- Known monetary consequence
- $500
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucinated_case_law
- Lack_of_verification
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Contract
- Trial
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- generative artificial intelligence
- Known monetary consequence
- $500
- Procedural posture
- 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.
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
Respondent admitted using generative artificial intelligence.
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.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.