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

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.