Kelly Bartholomew v. Clackamas County

What the court wrote

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

of law. When a party submits briefs based on invalid authorities, that party engages in conduct that jeopardizes the integrity of the LUBA appeal process. Regardless of who submits fabricated citations, or whether they originate from the use of artificial intelligence or otherwise, such citations strain LUBA's and the parties' limited resources. Ringo, 345 Or App at 304.4 The time and resources consumed for parties and LUBA to address Bartholomew's reliance on fabricated authorities would be far better used to address the merits of pending matters. See id. ("Every hour spent addressing false citations and statements of law is an hour diverted from those matters in which attorneys have supported their arguments with precedent that exists."). Submitting legal citations invites LUBA to rely on them and includes an implicit certification that the authorities exist and that the citations support the party's legal assertions. Legal arguments are bolstered by citations to valid authorities. Every time a party relies on even a single false authority, LUBA must commit attention and time to check the authorities to maintain integrity in the process and public confidence that LUBA will not rely on invalid authority in resolving an appeal. While parties and legal practitioners may at times miscite or mischaracterize existing legal authority, it is significantly more egregious for a party to rely on invalid authority. The court has observed that "generative artificial intelligence is not perceiving nonexistent law as the result of a disorder. Rather, it is generating nonexistent law in accordance with its design." Ringo, 345 Or App 304. Page8 LfJBA. ; :--««»z';; :—'..,.«,„,