Skip to content

Incident Tracker / United States (state)

Prososki v. Regan, 321 Neb. 38 (2026)

·Nebraska Supreme Court·US-STATERegulatory referral

The Nebraska Supreme Court struck an appellant's brief in a divorce appeal after finding 57 of 63 citations defective, including about 20 AI hallucinations and three fabricated cases, dismissed the appeal, and referred counsel W. Gregory Lake to the Counsel for Discipline, holding that fictitious authority is sanctionable under existing candor and competence rules.

Court
Nebraska Supreme Court
Date
2026-03-20
Who used the AI
Not recorded
AI tool
Not identified in the record
Conduct
In a marital-dissolution appeal, appellant's counsel filed a brief in which 57 of 63 citations were defective — including roughly 20 AI 'hallucinations', three entirely fabricated cases, and fabricated quotations — asserted by the appellee to have been generated by generative AI.
Outcome
Regulatory referral
Penalty
No monetary penalty recorded
Regulatory outcome
Nebraska Counsel for Discipline: Appellant's counsel W. Gregory Lake was referred for investigation of potential violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct (competence, diligence, candor toward the tribunal, and dishonesty). A suspension of counsel was reported in April 2026; the tracker has not located any primary disciplinary document and records the referral only (2026-03-20)
Status
Verified against listed sources
Last checked
2026-09-16

What was fabricated or misused

  • Kennedy v. Kennedy, 27 Neb. App. 510, 934 N.W.2d 57 (2019) — fictitious case using a real unpublished case name; quoted and cited five times
  • State on behalf of Maddox S. v. Matthew E., 23 Neb. App. 500, 874 N.W.2d 211 (2016) — incorrect citation, unsupported proposition, and fictitious quotations
  • Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2923 — real statute with fictitious quotations and misleading application
  • Schrag v. Spear, 312 Neb. 88, 978 N.W.2d 591 (2022) — incorrect citation and fictitious quotations
  • Neb. Ct. R. § 4-204 — real court rule with a fictitious quotation
  • Hotz v. Hotz, 301 Neb. 102, 917 N.W.2d 467 (2018) — real case with fictitious quotations and holding
  • State ex rel. A.E. v. Buckhalter, 273 Neb. 443, 730 N.W.2d 340 (2007) — real case that did not support the proposition cited
  • Schuman v. Schuman, 27 Neb. App. 1004, 939 N.W.2d 374 (2020) — incorrect citation
  • Neb. Ct. R. § 4-215 — real court rule with a fictitious quotation
  • Miller v. Miller, 227 Neb. 71, 416 N.W.2d 358 (1987) — fictitious case and fictitious quotation
  • Crawford v. Crawford, 263 Neb. 37, 637 N.W.2d 505 (2002) — incorrect citation and fictitious quotation
  • Brown v. Brown, 260 Neb. 954, 620 N.W.2d 82 (2000) — incorrect citation and unsupported proposition
  • State on behalf of Ricardo P. v. Christina R., 309 Neb. 705, 962 N.W.2d 315 (2021) — fictitious case
  • Bergmeier v. Bergmeier, 296 Neb. 440, 894 N.W.2d 266 (2017) — real case with fictitious quotations and holding
  • Simons v. Simons, 312 Neb. 136, 978 N.W.2d 121 (2022) — real case with fictitious quotations and holding
  • Parde v. Parde, 258 Neb. 101, 602 N.W.2d 657 (1999) — real case with fictitious quotations and holding
  • Garza v. Garza, 288 Neb. 213, 846 N.W.2d 626 (2014) — real case with fictitious quotation and holding
  • Heald v. Heald, 259 Neb. 604, 611 N.W.2d 598 (2000) — real case that did not support the proposition cited
  • Walker v. Walker, 9 Neb. App. 834, 621 N.W.2d 535 (2001) — incorrect citation and fictitious quotation
  • State v. Stricklin, 29 Neb. App. 367, 904 N.W.2d 535 (2017) — fictitious case and fictitious quotation

What the court said

“Jason’s July 31, 2025, brief contains numerous citations to fake cases, real cases with fake quotations, real cases with mischaracterized holdings, and Nebraska statutes and court rules with fake quotations.”
Nebraska Supreme Court, 321 Neb. at 45
“The following chart depicts the many problematic citations in Jason’s brief:”
Nebraska Supreme Court, 321 Neb. at 47
“Jason’s counsel’s submission of a brief with numerous fictitious citations and quotations is a serious dereliction of counsel’s duty to serve as an officer of the court.”
Nebraska Supreme Court, 321 Neb. at 55
“Whether using AI or not, the obligations of candor, competency, diligence, and making good faith arguments remain the same.”
Nebraska Supreme Court, 321 Neb. at 56

Timeline

  1. Jason's counsel filed the appellate brief containing the defective citations.
  2. Counsel submitted a replacement brief adding a required section but not changing content.
  3. Jennifer moved to strike the brief and dismiss the appeal.
  4. The Nebraska Supreme Court struck the brief, dismissed the appeal, and referred counsel.

Why this case matters

Prososki is a state supreme court answer to AI-tainted appellate briefing. The court treated a domestic-relations appeal as the vehicle for a broader rule: fabricated authority can be handled under existing duties of candor, competence, diligence, and nonfrivolous advocacy. Compared with McCarthy v DEA, Nebraska imposed the heavier case sanction by striking the brief and dismissing the appeal. The opinion also lists the defective authorities in detail, making the record unusually useful for checking how false quotations, bad citations, and fake cases can appear together.

Practice note

Appellate counsel should audit every citation, quotation, statute, and rule before filing, using the Nebraska Appellate Courts Online Library, official statutes, and the reporter. A draft-management problem or claimed wrong-file upload does not explain fabricated quotations. If an opponent files a chart of defects, counsel should verify each item, correct the filing with specifics, and preserve the client's appeal by addressing the court's integrity concern first.

Primary sources for this incident

Related regulation records for this incident

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

Similar incidents on the record

  • Douglas v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., No. 24-CV-1099 (D.C. Ct. App.)2026-09-03 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Regulatory referralIn the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Deutsche Bank's appellee brief cited four nonexistent authorities after counsel used Google's generative AI search tool without verification. The court struck the brief, ref…
  • JMOR Properties, LLC v. Artist Alley Townhomes, LLC, No. 4D2026-1787 (Fla. 4th DCA)2026-08-12 · Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal · Regulatory referralAfter dismissing a certiorari petition that cited a fabricated Fourth District decision, Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal considered counsel's show-cause response and imposed the sanction of referral to The Flo…
  • Mezu v. Mezu (Md. App. Ct. 2025), No. 361 Sept. Term 20252025-10-29 · Appellate Court of Maryland · Regulatory referralMaryland's intermediate appellate court referred an attorney to the state Attorney Grievance Commission after his client's brief cited multiple fictitious ChatGPT-generated cases and he conceded he routinely did not rea…
  • In re R.A. (Iowa Ct. App. 2025), No. 24-16292025-10-01 · Court of Appeals of Iowa · Regulatory referralAn Iowa appellate court struck a reply brief, imposed a $150 penalty (or an AI-ethics CLE alternative), and referred counsel to the Iowa Attorney Discipline Board after AI-driven research tools produced hallucinated cit…

Cite this record

SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Prososki v. Regan, 321 Neb. 38 (2026)”, safelegalai.com/tracker/prososki-v-regan (accessed 2026-09-16). Data: CC BY 4.0.

Report an issue with this record →