Judge issues landmark AI hallucination sanctions

Issue 57 

The Hon. Mark D. Clarke, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Oregon, has entered landmark orders requiring two attorneys to pay sanctions totaling $110,204.38 in relation to court filings containing AI hallucinations.[i]   

This matter arose from a family dispute over ownership and tenancy of a winery.[ii] The first of two sanctions orders in the matter was issued in December 2025.[iii] The December opinion and order addressed three briefs with citations to fifteen hallucinated cases and hallucinated quotations falsely attributed to eight legitimate authorities.[iv] The opinion contained an unusual finding that plaintiffs shared responsibility with plaintiffs’ pro hac vice counsel for submission of the briefs containing hallucinations, as plaintiffs failed to rebut defendants’ “persuasive evidence” that the lead plaintiff was a “serial self-represented litigator” and likely the person who used AI to draft the briefs containing hallucinations.[v] The sanctions ordered by the Court included striking plaintiffs’ summary judgment briefs without leave to refile, dismissing plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice, ordering plaintiffs’ pro hac vice counsel to pay $15,500 to the Clerk of the Court, awarding defendants reasonable attorney fees and expenses directly resulting from plaintiffs’ and their attorneys’ rule violations, and ordering plaintiffs’ local counsel to show cause why he should not be subject to sanctions.[vi]  

The second opinion and order, issued in March 2026, dealt with plaintiffs’ local counsel’s role in the matter, as well as defendants’ award of reasonable attorney fees and costs.[vii] The opinion found that plaintiffs’ local counsel failed to meaningfully participate in the case in violation of the Court’s local rules, and determined that sanctions were appropriate.[viii] The Court found defendants’ requested attorney fees and costs in the amount of $94,704.38 to be reasonable.[ix] The Court ordered local counsel to pay 15% of defendants’ awarded attorney fees and costs, while pro hac vice counsel was ordered to pay 85%.[x] In total, local counsel was ordered to pay $14,205.66, while pro hac vice counsel was ordered to pay $15,500 (December order) plus $80,498.72 (March order) for a total of $95,998.72.[xi] The total monetary sanctions in the case across both orders were $110, 204.38. 

This case is yet another unfortunate example of the fact that improper use of AI by the people you work with can have severe consequences for you and your clients if you do not fully understand the nature of the risk. If you need a resource to help you better understand how AI is impacting your professional responsibilities as a lawyer, Chapter 3 of A Lawyer’s Practical Guide to AI can help you get up to speed faster, and will also give you tips on how take steps to reduce your AI risks.   

Thanks for being here. 

Jennifer Ballard
Good Journey Consulting

[i] Opinion and Order dated Dec. 12, 2025 at 28, Opinion and Order dated Mar. 23, 2026 at 9-10, Joanne Couvrette et al. v. Mark A. Wisnovsky et al., No. 1:21-cv-00157 (D. Or. filed Jan. 29, 2021). 

[ii] Opinion and Order dated Mar. 23, 2026 at 2, Couvrette. 

[iii] Opinion and Order dated Dec. 12, 2025, Couvrette. 

[iv] Id. at 1, 20. 

[v] Id. at 23. 

[vi] Id. at 28-29. 

[vii] Opinion and Order dated Mar. 23, 2026 at 9-10, Couvrette. 

[viii] Id. at 9. 

[ix] Id. 

[x] Id. at 10. 

[xi] Id.