# Prososki v. Regan: Nebraska Supreme Court strikes an appellate brief and refers counsel for discipline over fictitious, allegedly AI-generated citations

> In a per curiam opinion filed March 20, 2026, the Nebraska Supreme Court struck the appellant's brief, dismissed the appeal, and referred appellant's counsel — W. Gregory Lake, of Plains Legal Group (Omaha) — to the Counsel for Discipline, after finding the brief 'riddled with fabricated citations and quotations.' The opposing party asserted the errors were AI-generated; counsel denied using AI, and the court held its analysis was the same either way.

- Verification status: pending
- Case type: deployment
- Provider: Generative-AI legal drafting (alleged)
- Client: Nebraska Supreme Court — Prososki v. Regan, 321 Neb. 38, No. S-25-295, Courts / legal (AI-governance honest-negative) (named)
- Sector: legal-services / US / cross
- Canonical URL: https://theinternetninja.com/stories/prososki-v-regan-nebraska-supreme-court-lake-ai-fictitious-citations-brief-struck-appeal-dismissed-discipline-referral-2026/
- Source: The Internet Ninja (theinternetninja.com), independent verified-proof platform

## Outcomes

| Metric | Before | After |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Appellant's brief stricken and appeal dismissed under the court's inherent authority |  |  |
| Appellant's counsel referred to the Counsel for Discipline of the Nebraska Supreme Court |  |  |
| District court judgment affirmed on plain-error review; cross-appeal found without merit |  |  |

## Verification method

Tier-1 court opinion (official Nebraska appellate opinion PDF, byte-tied to a Wayback capture) plus two independent Nebraska newsrooms. Every figure quoted verbatim from the archived captures; no client call required for a court-origin outcome.

## Full case file

**Verification status: PENDING — publish-ready, awaiting human client-confirmation. Not verified.**

## The problem
An appeal of a decree of dissolution of marriage reached the Nebraska Supreme
Court in which the appellant's brief, "signed and certified by his counsel,"
contained "numerous citations to fake cases, real cases with fake quotations,
real cases with mischaracterized holdings, and Nebraska statutes and court rules
with fake quotations." The opposing party moved to strike the brief and dismiss
the appeal, asserting the errors "are the product of generative artificial
intelligence (AI)." The court framed the issue as one of first impression:
"This matter presents a novel issue for Nebraska courts: the use of fictitious,
potentially AI-generated cases, holdings, and quotations."

Counsel denied the tool: he "asserted that AI was not used in the drafting of the
filed appellate brief," attributing the errors to a laptop screen crack and
filing the wrong draft. The court said it did not matter — "Regardless of whether
AI was used in the preparation of Jason's appellate brief, our analysis in this
case is ultimately the same." (This story therefore treats AI use as *alleged*,
not established.)

## What was built
Nothing was "built" in the product sense: this is an AI-governance honest-negative
— a court outcome documenting what happens when unverified, allegedly AI-generated
legal authority is filed with a court. The artifact under review is a single
appellate brief filed by counsel W. Gregory Lake, of Plains Legal Group (Omaha),
which the court found "riddled with fabricated citations and quotations."

## The outcome
In a per curiam opinion filed March 20, 2026 (*Prososki v. Regan*, 321 Neb. 38,
No. S-25-295), the Nebraska Supreme Court held: "We now strike the appellant's
brief, dismiss the appellant's appeal, and refer the appellant's counsel to the
Counsel for Discipline of the Nebraska Supreme Court." It acted "pursuant to our
inherent authority" and "[d]ue to the widespread nature of the fictitious
authority" in the brief. On the merits, it reviewed for plain error, found none,
and affirmed the district court's judgment; the cross-appeal was without merit.

The court closed with a caution echoed by both Nebraska newsrooms that covered
the ruling: "AI, like other technological tools, can be a benefit to the legal
community, but it must be used with caution and humility."

**Not a court figure — do not repeat as one:** widely circulated reporting that
"57 of 63 citations were defective" is the *opposing attorney's* count from a
February hearing (WOWT: "the opposing attorney said that of the 63 references
Omaha attorney Greg Lake made in his brief, 57 contained some form of defect"),
not a finding in the opinion, which uses "numerous," "many" and "widespread" and
lists roughly twenty example citations in a chart. The March 20 opinion is also
distinct from a later, separate order (reported April 15–16, 2026) temporarily
suspending Lake from practice — that order is not part of this record.

## Path to green
This is a court-origin public record, so "green" requires no client-confirmation
call — only a human editorial confirmation that the signed public opinion is
authentic and unmodified. A human should read the published opinion *Prososki v.
Regan*, 321 Neb. 38, No. S-25-295 (official copy on the Nebraska appellate
opinions site, docId `N00013081PUB`; also on the Nebraska Judicial Branch site,
Justia and FindLaw), confirm no rehearing or modification disturbs the
disposition, and only then approve the badge. `verified` is human-only and is
never set by any war-room agent.