Oregon Appeals Court Judge Warns of ‘Rapidly Escalating’ AI-Generated Errors in Legal Filings
Why It Matters
Oregon’s court system is grappling with a growing crisis that threatens the integrity of its legal proceedings and drains taxpayer-funded resources. Attorneys and self-represented litigants are increasingly submitting court filings that contain fake legal citations and fabricated quotations generated by artificial intelligence — and the state’s top appeals court judge says the problem is accelerating.
The misuse of AI tools is not just an abstract legal concern. It consumes court staff time, delays case decisions for Oregonians awaiting rulings, and undermines the foundational reliability of the judicial record.
What Happened
Erin C. Lagesen, chief judge of the Oregon Court of Appeals, issued a public message warning that AI-generated erroneous court filings are becoming a serious and growing problem. Lagesen described the filings as coming from “lawyers and self-represented litigants alike” and said the court is now directing staff and judges to formally track the time spent addressing fabricated legal authority.
The statement was issued on a Wednesday from the Oregon Court of Appeals, which is based in Salem. Lagesen pointed to guidance already published on the court’s website warning of the risks of using generative AI to prepare legal briefs and outlining potential sanctions for submitting false or fabricated legal information.
“In addition, to get a concrete sense of how much time the submission of fabricated authority likely produced by generative artificial intelligence is syphoning from the Court of Appeals’ core work of deciding cases, I have directed our staff and judges to track the time spent addressing fabricated authority so that Oregonians can have an accounting of the resources consumed in the event the situation does not resolve promptly,” Lagesen said in her public message.
By the Numbers
- $10,000 — fine issued by the Oregon Court of Appeals in March to an attorney whose filing contained at least 15 fabricated case citations in a marijuana license dispute.
- ~$8,000 — fine issued just last week to a separate attorney whose brief contained fabricated quotations and legal propositions falsely attributed to real cases.
- $110,000 — penalty handed down by U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke in federal court against two attorneys who filed briefs with citations to non-existent cases and fabricated quotations.
- At least 15 fabricated case citations were identified in a single filing in the marijuana license case alone.
What Counts as Fabricated Authority
The Oregon Court of Appeals has outlined the specific categories of AI-generated content that expose attorneys to sanctions. These include citations to cases that do not exist, quotations that do not appear in any cited case, and factual claims that have no basis in the actual court record.
Consequences for submitting such material can be severe. Courts may strike the filing from the record entirely, impose monetary fines payable to the court, require payment of opposing counsel’s attorney fees, or dismiss an appeal case outright.
To avoid penalties, those using AI tools must independently verify every cited case, confirm the accuracy of all quotations, and ensure that paraphrases are, as the court’s guidance states, “objectively reasonable in light of what the case actually says.”
Zoom Out
The problem is not unique to Oregon — courts across the country have begun cracking down on AI-assisted fabrications, a pattern that has emerged rapidly as generative AI tools became widely accessible to lawyers and the general public. Oregon’s federal courts have also seen controversy recently, underscoring growing pressure on the state’s judicial infrastructure at multiple levels.
The Oregon State Bar has previously released guidance stating attorneys may use AI if they take “reasonable steps to become competent in the use of such technology,” acknowledging that AI tools are “constantly changing.” However, that guidance places the burden of competence squarely on the attorney — offering little cover for those who rely on AI output without verification.
What’s Next
The Oregon Court of Appeals will now formally track staff and judicial time spent addressing fabricated AI-generated filings. Lagesen indicated this accounting will be made available to Oregonians if the situation does not improve. Further sanctions against individual attorneys are likely as the court takes an increasingly aggressive posture toward AI misuse in legal proceedings.
About the Author
