A Lawyer Just Got Hit With $96,000 in Fines for AI Hallucinated Court Filings. The Judge Called It a "Notorious Outlier."
An Oregon judge slapped a San Diego attorney with one of the largest AI sanctions in US history. Over 20 fake citations. The courts are done playing nice.
The AI Post newsroom — delivering AI news at the speed of intelligence.
The legal profession just got its most expensive AI wake-up call yet.
A U.S. magistrate judge in Oregon ordered San Diego attorney Stephen Brigandi to pay nearly $96,000 in penalties for submitting legal briefs containing more than 20 completely fictional case citations, all hallucinated by generative AI. The sanctions include $15,500 in disciplinary fines and roughly $80,500 in opposing counsel fees. A second attorney in the case was hit with another $14,200, bringing total penalties past $110,000.
Judge Mark Clarke did not mince words, calling it a "notorious outlier in both degree and volume" among AI misconduct cases. He also took the nuclear option: permanently dismissing all claims brought by Brigandi's client, Joanne Couvrette, in a family dispute over an Oregon vineyard.
Here is the twist. Brigandi says he did not draft the documents. The judge found "persuasive evidence" that Couvrette herself likely used AI to write the briefs, describing her as a "serial self-represented litigator." But the attorney of record still carries the responsibility. That is the lesson the legal profession keeps refusing to learn.
Damien Charlotin, a French attorney who tracks AI hallucination sanctions globally, confirmed these are the highest penalties of their kind in U.S. history. The previous record holder? Mike Lindell's lawyers, who got fined $3,000 each for the same offense. This makes that look like a parking ticket.
The pattern is accelerating. NPR reported this week that penalties are "stacking up" as AI spreads through the legal system. New Orleans city attorneys resigned after their own AI citation scandal. Courts across the country are implementing mandatory AI disclosure policies. And the fines are getting bigger, not smaller.
What happens next is predictable: every bar association in America will have mandatory AI use policies within 12 months. Malpractice insurers will start asking about AI tool usage on applications. And some lawyers will still submit hallucinated citations anyway, because the tools are too convenient and the temptation to skip verification is too strong.
The courts are sending a clear message: we do not care who typed the prompt. If your name is on the filing, you own the hallucinations. At $96,000 a pop, lawyers might finally start reading what their AI writes before submitting it.
First reported by the San Diego Union-Tribune.