Which source supports this Ringo v. Colquhoun Design Studio, LLC 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.

HomeCasesRingo v. Colquhoun Design Studio, LLC

Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 86/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.

Corpus matter record

Ringo v. Colquhoun Design Studio, LLC

CA Oregon · Dec 3, 2025

OR / state Editorial impact: medium fake citations fabricated quotes contract appellate Monetary Struck Filing

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Oregon Court of Appeals sanctioned respondents' counsel $2,000 for submitting a brief containing fabricated case law and false quotations. The court struck the brief and required counsel to certify that any future filing is drafted without generative AI and that all cited authorities have been personally verified by the attorney.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Second fabricated case citation in respondents' brief; court determined the cited authority does not exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | One of two fabricated case citations included in respondents' brief; court determined the cited authority does not exist. || False Quotes: Case Law | A substantive statement of law attributed to an existing case was fabricated (a false quotation/attribution); court found the attribution and statement to be nonexistent or false.
Why it matters now: Two fabricated citations in a single appellate brief triggered a $2K sanction — verify every case against Westlaw before filing.

Why this matter is tracked

In Ringo v. Colquhoun Design Studio, LLC, the Oregon Court of Appeals sanctioned respondents' counsel $2,000 for submitting an appellate brief containing two fabricated case citations and one fabricated legal quotation. The court determined that the attorney violated professional duties of candor and truthfulness by failing to verify the accuracy of the brief's contents, which the court attributed to the use of generative artificial intelligence. The court struck the offending brief and ordered the attorney to pay the sanction to the Appellate Court Services Division. Counsel was granted leave to file a replacement brief, provided they certify that they did not use generative AI to draft the document and have personally verified all cited authorities.

Operational lesson

Two fabricated citations in a single appellate brief triggered a $2K sanction — verify every case against Westlaw before filing.

Record details

OregonSingle-state evidence scope

Explore OROpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.

CourtCA Oregon

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit9th Circuit

DateDec 3, 2025

AI toolGenerative artificial intelligence (unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeThe court struck the respondents' brief and imposed a $2,000 monetary sanction against respondents' counsel, payable to the Appellate Court Services Division.

Known amount$2,000

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court attributed the fabricated law to the use of generative artificial intelligence.

Procedural posture

Appellate review of a case originating in Deschutes County Circuit Court, where the Court of Appeals issued a show cause order regarding fabricated citations and subsequently imposed monetary sanctions.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Second fabricated case citation in respondents' brief; court determined the cited authority does not exist.
Fabricated: Case Law | One of two fabricated case citations included in respondents' brief; court determined the cited authority does not exist.
False Quotes: Case Law | A substantive statement of law attributed to an existing case was fabricated (a false quotation/attribution); court found the attribution and statement to be nonexistent or false.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Ringo v. Colquhoun Design Studio, LLC?: The Oregon Court of Appeals sanctioned respondents' counsel $2,000 for submitting a brief containing fabricated case law and false quotations. The court struck the brief and required counsel to certify that any future filing is drafted without generative AI and that all cited authorities have been personally verified by the attorney.
Why does Ringo v. Colquhoun Design Studio, LLC matter for legal AI risk?: Two fabricated citations in a single appellate brief triggered a $2K sanction — verify every case against Westlaw before filing.
What does the public record establish about Ringo v. Colquhoun Design Studio, LLC?: 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.
Which source supports this Ringo v. Colquhoun Design Studio, LLC 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.

Carol L. Williams v. Tracy HonlCA Oregon · Apr 22, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Doiban v. Oregon Liquor and Cannabis CommissionCA Oregon · Mar 18, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Keith Powell v. Employment Dep. & First Congregational Church of PortlandCA Oregon · Feb 11, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes State v. DixonCA Oregon · Jul 15, 2026same court · fake citations + appellate Boersma v. DavenportCA Oregon · May 6, 2026same court · fake citations + appellate Kelly Bartholomew v. Public Utility Commission of OregonCA Oregon · Apr 6, 2026same court · fake citations + appellate

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Evidence-review statusprimary document verified

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Evidence review recorded Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Sep 10, 2026; latest tracked decision Sep 8, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open CA Oregon profile Explore jurisdiction

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology