Prososki v. Regan

Court sanction

Nebraska Supreme Court · Neb. Sup. Ct. · Decided March 20, 2026

Citation:: Prososki v. Regan, 321 Neb. 38, No. S-25-295 (Neb. Mar. 20, 2026)
AI tool:: AI (unspecified; appellant's counsel denied AI use, but appellee asserted the brief's nonexistent and inaccurate citations were the product of generative AI)

What happened

Dissolution-of-marriage appeal in which appellant Jason C. Regan was represented by W. Gregory Lake of Plains Legal Group. The Nebraska Supreme Court found the appellate brief contained numerous fictitious case citations, real cases with fabricated quotations, real cases with mischaracterized holdings, and Nebraska statutes and court rules with fabricated quotations. The court itemized 22 problematic authorities in a chart, including the repeatedly cited fictitious 'Kennedy v. Kennedy, 27 Neb. App. 510, 934 N.W.2d 57 (2019)' (a real case name from an unpublished memorandum opinion paired with a fabricated reporter cite, holding, and quotations), Miller v. Miller and State v. Stricklin (entirely fictitious), and real cases such as Simons v. Simons, Hotz v. Hotz, Bergmeier v. Bergmeier, Garza v. Garza, and Parde v. Parde with fabricated quotations and holdings. Counsel attributed the errors to 'sloppy' copy-pasting from Westlaw and a cracked laptop screen, denied using AI, and submitted a replacement brief that the court found made no substantive corrections.

Outcome

The Nebraska Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion issued March 20, 2026, struck appellant's brief, dismissed the appeal, and referred counsel to the Counsel for Discipline of the Nebraska Supreme Court for investigation of potential violations of Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. Sec. 3-501.1 (competence), 3-501.3 (diligence), 3-503.1 (meritorious claims), 3-503.3 (candor toward the tribunal), and 3-508.4(c) (dishonesty/misrepresentation). On the cross-appeal, the court affirmed the district court's decree of dissolution. Justice Stacy filed a concurrence. The court held that submission of fictitious authority, 'whether through generative AI or not,' is resolvable under existing rules of professional conduct and that 'conscious avoidance' or failure to verify satisfies the 'knowingly' element of the candor duty.

Prososki v. Regan is one of the most consequential state supreme court rulings to date on appellate briefs riddled with fictitious citations. The court struck the entire brief, dismissed the appeal, and referred counsel to the Counsel for Discipline. The opinion emphasizes that “whether using AI or not, the obligations of candor, competency, diligence, and making good faith arguments remain the same,” and that “conscious avoidance” or failing to verify cited authority satisfies the “knowingly” requirement of the duty of candor toward the tribunal.

Primary sources

Unverified claims:

Whether AI was actually used in drafting the brief: counsel denied AI use; the court declined to make a factual finding either way, holding the analysis is the same regardless.
Any subsequent disciplinary order (e.g., suspension) from the Nebraska Counsel for Discipline is not contained in the March 20, 2026 opinion and has not been independently verified.

Last verified: April 24, 2026. Verify against primary sources before relying on this in a filing.