Or. Ct. App.: Oregon Court of Appeals: Notice Regarding Court Imposition of Sanctions for…
Issued by the Oregon Court of Appeals · Oregon Court of Appeals
Verified September 28, 2026
- Citation
- Oregon Court of Appeals: Notice Regarding Court Imposition of Sanctions for Submission of Fabricated Authority Produced by AI
- Order date
- April 28, 2026
Status and scope
No AI-specific filing obligation: in force, but it imposes no disclosure, verification, or use restriction on attorney filings beyond existing rules. It provides: 'The inclusion of fabricated authorities in a court filing is grounds for striking the filing and the imposition of sanctions, including monetary sanctions payable to the court; attorney fees payable to the opposing party; and/or dismissal of the appeal.'
What the instrument provides
- 'The inclusion of fabricated authorities in a court filing is grounds for striking the filing and the imposition of sanctions, including monetary sanctions payable to the court; attorney fees payable to the opposing party; and/or dismissal of the appeal.'
- 'To avoid sanctions, any person using a generative artificial intelligence program to prepare content for a court filing must verify that (1) all cases cited exist; (2) all quotations attributed to existing cases are, in fact, contained in the cases cited; and (3) all paraphrased propositions of law attributed to existing cases are objectively reasonable in light of what the case actually says.'
- The notice imposes no disclosure or certification requirement.
Practice areas: state civil, state criminal, state family
What the notice says
The Oregon Court of Appeals posts a Notice Regarding Court Imposition of Sanctions for Submission of Fabricated Authority Produced by AI on its Rules and Resources page. It reports “an increasing number of filings containing fabricated authorities,” which it defines to include “citations that do not exist, quotations that do not appear in the cited authority, propositions of law attributed to citations but not reasonably related to the cite, or factual support that is made up and has no basis in the record.”
“The inclusion of fabricated authorities in a court filing is grounds for striking the filing and the imposition of sanctions, including monetary sanctions payable to the court; attorney fees payable to the opposing party; and/or dismissal of the appeal.”
The three checks
“To avoid sanctions, any person using a generative artificial intelligence program to prepare content for a court filing must verify that (1) all cases cited exist; (2) all quotations attributed to existing cases are, in fact, contained in the cases cited; and (3) all paraphrased propositions of law attributed to existing cases are objectively reasonable in light of what the case actually says.”
The notice points readers to three decisions: Ringo v. Colquhoun Design Studio, LLC, 345 Or App 301 (2025), sanctioning an attorney; Powell v. Employment Department, 347 Or App 55 (2026), sanctioning a self-represented party; and Williams v. Honl, 348 Or App 505 (2026), awarding $8,044.25 in attorney fees, which also warns that AI products “by established legal providers” are not “necessarily incapable” of fabricating authority.
How the tracker treats it
The notice is listed as advisory: it describes the court’s sanctions practice and the checks filers must make, and it adds no disclosure or certification step.