Carol L. Williams v. Tracy Honl

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

” On receipt of the parties’ responses, the court, through the Chief Judge, referred the matter to the Motions Department for resolution by way of precedential opinion issued by a three-judge panel because of the important and concerningly recurrent nature of the issue. As an initial matter, the professional choice for appellant's attorney to have made upon receiving the respondent's brief would have been to disclose to the court immediately that the opening brief contained fabricated law resulting from the use of generative artificial intelligence, and to have requested leave to file a rewritten brief. The motion that appellant's attorney filed lacked the candor that we expect from lawyers. See RPC 3.

Authorities cited in the passage: Brief cited 'Tubra v. Cooke, 233 Or App 339, 225 P3d 862 (2010)' for an anti‑SLAPP proposition · Neumann v. Liles · Brief quoted Staten v. Steel as supporting a broad rule that private employment disputes · Brief relied on Davoodian v. Rivera and similar citations for propositions or quotations the co · Brief invoked Handy v. Lane for a proposition about government transparency and accountab