Skip to content

Incident Tracker / United States (federal)

Couvrette v. Wisnovsky, No. 1:21-cv-00157-CL (D. Or.)

·US District Court, District of Oregon (Medford Division)·US-FEDSanctions

In the US District Court for Oregon, lead counsel Stephen Brigandi filed three briefs with fifteen non-existent cases and false quotations, then concealed them. Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke dismissed the claims, imposed $15,500 in sanctions plus $94,704 in fees, and referred Brigandi to the Oregon State Bar.

Analysis
The $110,000 Oregon AI-sanctions case, and what the coverage got wrong
Court
US District Court, District of Oregon (Medford Division)
Date
2025-12-12
Who used the AI
Not recorded
AI tool
Not identified in the record
Conduct
Lead counsel Stephen Brigandi filed three summary-judgment briefs containing fifteen non-existent cases and fabricated quotations falsely attributed to eight real authorities, generated by generative AI. When defendants flagged the fakes, the amended briefs deceptively deleted only the quotation marks rather than correcting the fabrications. Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke imposed terminating sanctions; the court denied Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration on 22 June 2026, leaving the sanctions in place.
Outcome
Sanctions
Penalty
US$110,204
Regulatory outcome
Oregon State Bar: The court directed the Clerk to transmit its 12 December 2025 sanctions order to the Oregon State Bar (Brigandi appeared pro hac vice and is a California attorney). Referral only — no Bar disposition is yet on record. (2025-12-12)
Status
Verified against listed sources
Last checked
2026-09-04

What was fabricated or misused

  • Fifteen non-existent cases across plaintiffs’ three summary-judgment briefs — the court declined to name them
  • Seven fabricated quotations falsely attributed to real cases — the court did not list the case names in the order
  • Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 2, cmt. b (1981) — fabricated statement that “Recitals of fact or intent in a written contract are not promises and do not impose duties”
  • Three fabricated quotations attributed to non-existent cases — counted in the motion record but not separately priced by the court

What the court said

“Plaintiffs filed three briefs containing citations to fifteen non-existent cases and fabricated quotations falsely attributed to eight legitimate authorities.”
US District Court, District of Oregon (Medford Division), ECF 215, p. 1
“This Opinion does not include the names of the fictitious cases doctored by Plaintiffs, as doing so could inadvertently amplify the lie that these cases exist.”
US District Court, District of Oregon (Medford Division), ECF 215, p. 1
“If there was ever an "appropriate case" to grant terminating sanctions for the misuse of artificial intelligence, this is it.”
US District Court, District of Oregon (Medford Division), ECF 215, p. 2
“The Court has closely reviewed Defendants' Amended Bill of Costs and Reasonable Attorney Fees (ECF No. 223) and finds the requested amount of $94,704.38 reasonable.”
US District Court, District of Oregon (Medford Division), ECF 225, p. 9

Timeline

  1. Plaintiffs filed a summary-judgment motion citing two non-existent cases.
  2. Plaintiffs' response cited seven more non-existent cases; defendants flagged the first two.
  3. Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Errata that did not address the non-existent cases.
  4. Plaintiffs' reply brought the total to fifteen fake cases and added fabricated quotations.
  5. Defendants served a proposed sanctions motion under Rule 11.
  6. Court struck briefs, dismissed claims, fined lead counsel and referred the order.
  7. Court found $94,704.38 in fees reasonable and split payment between counsel.

Why this case matters

Couvrette sits at the high end of the US tracker because the court imposed terminating sanctions and then a fee award, not only a fine or referral. The order also treats post-warning conduct as part of the harm: amended briefs removed quotation marks but left unsupported legal propositions in place. Compared with Gauthier and State v Coleman, the response was less remedial and the sanction reached the merits. The later fees order also shows that local counsel's limited role can still carry a share of the cost.

Practice note

When fabricated authorities are found, counsel should withdraw or replace the affected argument, not preserve the same text without quotation marks or citations. Pro hac vice counsel and local counsel should both review dispositive briefs for fake cases, fake quotations and local-rule compliance. If local counsel does not meaningfully participate, the fee order shows that cost-shifting can reach them too.

Primary sources for this incident

Related regulation records for this incident

No related regulation record has been linked to this incident yet.

Read our full analysis of this case →

Similar incidents on the record

Cite this record

SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Couvrette v. Wisnovsky, No. 1:21-cv-00157-CL (D. Or.)”, safelegalai.com/tracker/couvrette-v-wisnovsky (accessed 2026-09-16). Data: CC BY 4.0.

Report an issue with this record →