Couvrette v. Wisnovsky

What sanction did the court impose?

Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke granted defendants' motion for sanctions in part. In the December 12, 2025 order (Doc 215): (1) Plaintiffs' summary judgment briefs and amended filings STRICKEN without leave to refile. (2) Mr. Brigandi ordered to pay $15,500 to the Clerk of the Court, adopting the Ringo tariff of $500 per non-existent case and $1,000 per fabricated quotation. (3) Defendants awarded reasonable attorney fees and expenses dating back to plaintiffs' January 31, 2025 motion for summary judgment. (4) Mr. Murphy's prior motion to withdraw vacated; ordered to show cause. (5) Plaintiffs' claims DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE under Rule 11(c)(4) and for repeated Local Rules violations. Clerk directed to send a copy of the order to the Oregon State Bar. In the March 23, 2026 follow-on order (Doc 225), the court approved defendants' Amended Bill of Costs and Reasonable Attorney Fees (ECF No. 223) at $94,704.38 as reasonable, and apportioned the award 85% to Mr. Brigandi ($80,498.72) and 15% to Mr. Murphy ($14,205.66), finding Murphy willfully violated LR 83-3(a)(1) by failing to meaningfully participate as local counsel. Murphy ordered to attach the opinion to any future pro hac vice sponsorship motion in D. Or.

Why does Couvrette v. Wisnovsky matter for law firms using AI?

Couvrette v. Wisnovsky is one of the most severe AI-sanctions orders in federal court to date. Judge Clarke described the case as “a notorious outlier in both degree and volume” in the growing universe of AI-misconduct orders, and found it an “appropriate case” for terminating sanctions. The ruling illustrates the compounding liability that results when counsel not only submit AI-generated fabricated law but then fail to meaningfully correct or explain the conduct. The court applied the Ringo tariff ($500 per non-existent case, $1,000 per fabricated quotation) adopted by the Oregon Court of Appeals, which has now migrated into Oregon federal practice. The order situates dismissal of the client’s claims as a proportionate consequence of counsel’s misconduct where the represented party shares responsibility.

The March 23, 2026 follow-on order is independently significant: it is one of the first published decisions to financially sanction a local counsel sponsor for failing to “meaningfully participate” under a pro hac vice local rule (D. Or. LR 83-3(a)(1)). Judge Clarke found that Mr. Murphy’s decision to “hold his breath and cover his eyes” while Mr. Brigandi filed sanctionable briefs was a willful violation of LR 83-3, and apportioned 15% of the $94,704.38 fee award ($14,205.66) to Murphy. The opinion holds that while “meaningful participation does not ordinarily require local counsel to confirm the veracity of their associated pro hac vice counsel’s legal citations, it necessarily requires local counsel to provide more than an OSB number and a signature on the pro hac vice application.” For any attorney serving as local counsel in D. Or. (and likely persuasive in other districts with similar rules), the order establishes that a purely nominal sponsorship role is itself sanctionable once the sponsor is on notice of pro hac vice counsel’s propensity to violate rules.