Couvrette v. Wisnovsky (D. Or.): a $15,500 sanction for AI-fabricated citations, at $500 per fake case and $1,000 per fabricated quotation

The problem

Generative AI can produce fluent, authoritative-looking citations to cases and quotations that do not exist, and when a lawyer files that output without checking it, false authorities enter the court record. Across three summary-judgment briefs filed over five months, plaintiffs’ counsel in an Oregon winery dispute submitted fifteen non-existent cases and eight fabricated quotations, which the court described as “Plaintiffs’ misuse of generative artificial intelligence” (source). This is a court-adjudicated honest-negative: a cautionary AI-governance story sourced from a signed federal order, not a vendor deployment win.

What was built

Nothing was built here. Joanne Couvrette and co-plaintiffs sued her brothers, Mark and Michael Wisnovsky, and Valley View Winery in an intra-family dispute over the winery near Jacksonville, Oregon (source). Briefing the cross-motions for summary judgment, plaintiffs’ pro hac vice counsel Stephen Brigandi filed three briefs that, in the court’s words, contained “citations to fifteen non-existent cases and fabricated quotations falsely attributed to eight legitimate authorities” (source).

Per footnote 8 of the order, the eight fabricated quotations broke down as “seven fabricated quotations falsely attributed to real cases and one fabricated quotation falsely attributed to the Restatement (Second) of Contracts,” and the court declined to impose an additional monetary sanction for three further fabricated quotations that had been attributed to the non-existent cases (source). While the order sanctioned counsel of record, the court also found “persuasive evidence that Ms. Couvrette is a serial self-represented litigator who was likely the person responsible for using artificial intelligence to draft the summary judgment briefs in this case” (source).

The outcome

The registry fine: $15,500 against counsel personally. In an Opinion and Order filed December 12, 2025, Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke ordered that “Mr. Brigandi is ordered to pay the Clerk of the Court $15,500 within 30 days of the date of this Order” (source). ComplexDiscovery, reporting independently, states the same figure: “The court sanctioned the lead lawyer $15,500” (source).

The formula: $500 per fake case and $1,000 per fabricated quotation. The court adopted the Oregon Court of Appeals’ valuation of “$500 per non-existent case and $1,000 per fabricated quotation” from Ringo, then applied it: “Mr. Brigandi submitted fifteen non-existent cases and eight fabricated quotations falsely attributed to legitimate authorities” (source). That reconciles as fifteen cases at $500 ($7,500) plus eight quotations at $1,000 ($8,000) (source).

The briefs struck, the case dismissed, the bar notified. The court ordered the sanctionable briefs “STRICKEN without leave to refile,” dismissed plaintiffs’ claims “with PREJUDICE,” and directed “the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this Order to the Oregon State Bar” (source).

The later fee award, a weaker secondary figure. A separate March 2026 order apportioned the defendants’ attorney fees. The Oregonian reported that award as roughly $80,000 against Brigandi and about $14,000 against former local counsel Timothy Murphy, bringing the reported combined penalties to about $110,000 (source). Only the $15,500 registry fine and the per-item formula are asserted here from the Tier-1 order; the attorney-fee totals come from a separate order that this file does not re-bind to a primary source, and are stated only as the press rounded them.

How this was verified

Checked live on 2026-08-13. The origin is the signed federal Opinion and Order (Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke, No. 1:21-cv-00157-CL, ECF No. 215, filed December 12, 2025), read against the CourtListener RECAP copy of the docketed order and a byte-identical S3 re-host (source). Every quoted line above, the $15,500 fine, the $500/$1,000 formula, the fifteen-cases-and-eight-quotations count, the strike, the dismissal with prejudice, and the Oregon State Bar referral, was re-read against that order on the live-check date. The exact $15,500 is independently restated by ComplexDiscovery (source).

The honest limit: the order names no specific AI product, only “Plaintiffs’ misuse of generative artificial intelligence” (source). The later attorney-fee apportionment is a separate order; the press rounds the totals (The Oregonian gives about $80,000, about $14,000, and about $110,000), and because this file does not re-verify those numbers against the March 2026 primary, no more precise attorney-fee figure is asserted here.

Related case files

The $500/$1,000 formula this court applied was borrowed directly from Ringo v. Colquhoun, the Oregon Court of Appeals decision that first set per-item pricing for fabricated authorities; Couvrette is the federal court adopting a state appellate valuation. A second Oregon appellate application of the same approach is Doiban v. OLCC, where the same fifteen-cases pattern produced the largest Oregon fine on the beat. For contrast on how much larger a single sanction can run when a court prices the harm differently, see Lacey v. State Farm, a $31,100 special-master sanction for the same class of conduct.

Sources

Tier 1 = the court stating its own order (primary); Tier 2 = independent reputable press naming the parties. All URLs checked live on 2026-08-13.

1. U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, “Opinion and Order, Couvrette v. Wisnovsky, No. 1:21-cv-00157-CL” (Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke), filed 2025-12-12 (Tier 1, primary federal court order; CourtListener RECAP copy of the docketed order). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.158388/gov.uscourts.ord.158388.215.0.pdf
2. ComplexDiscovery (Rob Robinson), “The AI Sanction Wave: $145K in Q1 Penalties,” 2026-04-06 (Tier 2, independent legal-technology press stating the exact $15,500 firsthand). https://complexdiscovery.com/the-ai-sanction-wave-145k-in-q1-penalties-signals-courts-have-lost-patience-with-genai-filing-failures/
3. The Oregonian (Zane Sparling), “AI citations cost lawyers $110,000 in Jacksonville vineyard lawsuit,” 2026-04-15 (Tier 2, independent press; source for the later attorney-fee apportionment, figures rounded). https://rv-times.com/2026/04/15/ai-citations-cost-lawyers-110000-in-jacksonville-vineyard-lawsuit/