Ringo v. Colquhoun Design Studio, LLC
CA Oregon · Dec 3, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA Oregon
- Record ID
- ringo-v-colquhoun-design-studio-llc-2025-12-03
- Observed outcome
- The court struck the respondents' brief and imposed a $2,000 monetary sanction against respondents' counsel, payable to the Appellate Court Services Division.
- Known monetary consequence
- $2,000
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
Two fabricated citations in a single appellate brief triggered a $2K sanction — verify every case against Westlaw before filing.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Contract
- Appellate
- Monetary
- Struck Filing
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Generative artificial intelligence (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- $2,000
- 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.
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
The court attributed the fabricated law to the use of generative artificial intelligence.
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.
- Retain a matter-level record of source checks and corrections.