Witkin v. McGreevy
Supreme Court of Oregon · Or. Sup. Ct. · Oregon bar guidance
Conduct
Self-represented respondent on review used generative AI to create a response that cited fabricated authorities.
Consequence
Stipulated $500 sanction; response stricken; leave to refile a corrected, citation-certified response within 14 days.
Lesson
Here the Court struck the response despite the filer's admission and required any refiled response to certify that every cited source exists.
Verified September 28, 2026
- Citation
- Witkin v. McGreevy, No. S072692, Order Striking Respondent's Response to Petition for Review, Imposing Sanction, and Granting Petitioner's Motion to Take Judicial Notice (Or. June 4, 2026) (Flynn, C.J.)
- Decided
- June 4, 2026
Summary
Mary McGreevy petitioned the Oregon Supreme Court for review of a Court of Appeals decision (A185594) in an action brought by Adam Witkin. Witkin, the respondent on review, filed a response on March 2, 2026. McGreevy's reply argued that the response "relies on authorities that cannot be located in the Oregon Reports," and Witkin's later response to the reply did not address that point. On April 10, 2026, the Court ordered Witkin to confirm each citation under penalty of perjury, explain how any erroneous citations came to be included, and show cause why the Court should not strike his response or impose other sanctions. His April 24, 2026 response addressed each of the fabricated authorities, explained that he had used generative AI to create the pleading, and asserted that he was unaware generative AI could generate fictitious authorities and inaccurate legal arguments. The Court noted that he was self-represented when he filed the response but "was nonetheless obliged to make a reasonable effort to ensure that the filing included no affirmative misrepresentations."
- AI tool:
- Generative AI, tool not named (the order recounts that his show-cause response explained that he "had used generative artificial intelligence" to create the pleading)
- Sanction amount:
- $500 payable to the Appellate Court Services Division (stipulated); response to the petition for review stricken
What sanction did the court impose?
In an order signed by Chief Justice Meagan A Flynn on June 4, 2026, the Court accepted Witkin's stipulation that a $500 financial sanction was appropriate and directed him or his counsel to pay $500 to the Appellate Court Services Division of the Oregon Judicial Department within 21 days. It denied his request not to strike the response and, on its own motion, struck his Response to Petition for Review (Docket Entry No. 7), stating that "[t]he injection of false precedent into a case undermines the integrity of the proceedings and cannot be ignored." Considering the steps he took to accept responsibility, the Court granted him leave to refile at his own expense: under ORAP 9.10(1) he "may, but is not required to," file an amended response within 14 days, limited to correcting the inaccurate descriptions of the propositions for which the cited authorities stand, with no new arguments, and required any amended response to certify that he or his counsel verified that every source of law cited, quoted, or paraphrased exists. The order also granted McGreevy's motion to take judicial notice of Klamath County Circuit Court Case No. 25CV29142.
Why does Witkin v. McGreevy matter for law firms using AI?
The order is brief, and its reasoning is in two sentences. On the sanction: “Reliance on legal citations and arguments produced by generative AI without any effort to verify those citations is unreasonable.” On the strike: “The injection of false precedent into a case undermines the integrity of the proceedings and cannot be ignored.” The Court applied both to a filer who was self-represented when he filed, holding that he was “nonetheless obliged to make a reasonable effort to ensure that the filing included no affirmative misrepresentations.”
The procedure is worth noting. The problem surfaced in the opposing party’s reply, not the Court’s own review, and Witkin’s next filing did not respond to it. The Court then issued a show-cause order requiring him to confirm each citation under penalty of perjury and to explain how any erroneous citations came to be included. His response admitted that he used generative AI to create the pleading and that he did not know it could produce fictitious authorities. He stipulated to the $500 sanction and asked the Court not to strike the response; the Court accepted the stipulation and struck the response anyway.
The remedy separates the filer from the argument. Witkin was allowed, but not required, to refile, and only to correct the inaccurate descriptions of what the cited authorities stand for, with no new arguments, and only with a certification that every source of law cited, quoted, or paraphrased exists. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that certification as a model for internal sign-off on appellate filings.
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- Verify every authority in a filing responding to a petition for review. The petitioner's reply flagged the unlocatable authorities, and the Court issued a show-cause order after the respondent's next filing did not answer the point.
- Document a correction plan when a hallucination is identified. The Court credited the respondent's acceptance of responsibility by allowing a limited refiling, but still struck the original response.
- Consider adopting the Court's certification language internally: a statement that every source of law cited, quoted, or paraphrased in a filing has been verified to exist.