Oregon's appellate courts and AI-fabricated citations: what the courts said

Informational only, not legal advice. TacticalMS is not a law firm. Read more.

Oregon's two appellate courts spent the spring of 2026 putting the bar and the public on notice about one specific AI problem: court filings that cite cases, quotations or legal propositions that do not exist. In April, the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals issued a public message about it ⁴. In June, the Oregon Supreme Court issued what the Oregon Judicial Department called its first AI orders ¹.

This brief summarizes what the courts wrote, using the orders and the courts' own releases.

The Court of Appeals message (April 29, 2026)

Chief Judge Erin C. Lagesen wrote that the Court of Appeals was receiving "a rapidly escalating number of filings that contain fabricated legal authority," which she described as "likely produced by the use of generative artificial intelligence" ⁴. She called the filings "a significant drain on court resources" ⁴.

The message said the chief judge had "directed our staff and judges to track the time spent addressing fabricated authority," so that Oregonians could see the resources consumed ⁴. The court also said it would post information on its website about the risks of using generative AI to prepare briefs and the range of sanctions that can follow ⁴.

Coverage by the Oregon Capital Chronicle, republished by Salem Reporter, reported that the message said the filings came from lawyers and self-represented litigants alike, and described recent monetary sanctions in Oregon cases involving fabricated citations ⁵.

The Supreme Court orders (June 4, 2026)

Both orders were signed by Chief Justice Meagan A. Flynn and dated June 4, 2026 ^{2, 3}. The Oregon Judicial Department announced them the next day ¹.

Aldridge v. Tussing (S072780). This was a petition for a writ of mandamus. According to the order, the court issued an order to show cause in April because the relators' memoranda appeared to cite nonexistent cases and misquote real ones ². The relators attributed the problems to a generative AI service called "LegalAI" ^{1, 2}. The order says that less than 12 hours later they filed a declaration citing at least four cases the court could not find in the Oregon reports ². The court struck the amended petition, its supporting documents and the response to the show cause order, and dismissed the proceeding ². The order states: "The injection of false precedent undermines the integrity of the proceedings" ².

Witkin v. McGreevy (S072692). Here the court, on its own motion, struck a response to a petition for review ³. The order says the filer acknowledged using generative AI and stipulated that a $500 sanction was appropriate ³. The court allowed an amended response within 14 days, with no new arguments and with a certification that every cited source had been verified to exist ³.

What the Chief Justice said

In the Judicial Department's release, Chief Justice Flynn said: "We recognize that AI products may seem like an appealing short-cut to legal research and presenting legal arguments" ¹. She added that when the court spends considerable time on fabricated arguments, "it comes at the expense of other cases" ¹.

Context

The orders came about a year after the Oregon State Bar's Formal Opinion 2025-205, which says lawyers must verify AI-assisted work, including citations and quotations, and must check court rules on AI use ⁶. The court orders apply court rules and sanctions to filings; the bar opinion applies the Rules of Professional Conduct to lawyers. Both point the same way: a person, not the tool, is responsible for checking that every authority is real. Our post on Oregon's two AI ethics opinions covers the bar side in more detail.

The Judicial Department's release also points readers to court help pages, the State of Oregon Law Library and Oregon Law Help for information on using AI tools ¹.

Not legal advice. This post is general information about law and technology, not legal advice. It does not create an attorney-client relationship, and TacticalMS is not a law firm. Laws, rules and ethics opinions change; check the cited sources and talk with a licensed Oregon attorney about any specific situation. Researched and drafted with AI tools from the sources above and checked against our editorial standards. Spot an error? Email intake@tacticalms.dev and we'll fix it.