San Diego Attorney Ordered to Pay $96,000 for AI-Hallucinated Legal Citations
A federal judge in Oregon has imposed what is believed to be one of the largest monetary penalties ever assessed against a U.S. attorney for submitting fabricated legal citations generated by artificial intelligence. San Diego attorney Stephen Brigandi must pay $15,500 in disciplinary sanctions and nearly $80,500 in opposing counsel's legal fees.
The case involves a family dispute over Valley View Winery in southwestern Oregon. Brigandi filed three motions containing citations to 15 nonexistent cases and eight fabricated quotes falsely attributed to legitimate legal authorities. A second attorney in the case was ordered to pay an additional $14,200, bringing total penalties above $110,000.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke called the case "a notorious outlier in both degree and volume" among the growing number of AI-related sanctions in federal courts.
The Dispute Over Who Drafted the Documents
Brigandi has consistently denied drafting the three problematic motions. He told the Union-Tribune he represented his client, San Diego resident Joanne Couvrette, on a pro bono basis and did not personally write the documents containing the hallucinated citations.
However, the judge found "persuasive evidence" that Couvrette herself drafted the filings. Court documents show Couvrette had represented herself in multiple lawsuits and had filed similar briefs containing fabricated cases in Oregon state court just months before the federal filings.
When asked who actually drafted the motions, both Brigandi and the local counsel attorney cited attorney-client privilege and declined to answer directly. The judge noted that Couvrette and Brigandi failed to dispute the evidence against them despite multiple opportunities to do so in court.
"Ms. Couvrette's and Mr. Brigandi's silence, despite multiple opportunities to explain their side of the story, speaks volumes," Clarke wrote.
Couvrette's Role in the Case
Couvrette is the eldest sibling in the Wisnovsky family. She filed the lawsuit in January 2021 against her two younger brothers, Mark and Michael Wisnovsky, over control of the family winery during their mother's final years.
Brigandi joined the litigation in early 2024, nearly three years after it began. Because he is not licensed to practice in Oregon federal court, he required special permission and had to work with a local counsel attorney.
Couvrette has a history of litigation. She was the executive director of the Canyon Crest Academy Foundation when a report criticizing the nonprofit's finances prompted an audit that confirmed financial mismanagement. She later sued the foundation, alleging she was fired in 2024 over a controversial Facebook post. That lawsuit remains pending in San Diego Superior Court.
The Penalty and Its Consequences
The judge took the drastic step of permanently dismissing all of Couvrette's legal claims against her brothers. This terminating sanction effectively ended her lawsuit over the winery.
In a follow-up order, the judge ruled that Couvrette must personally pay her brothers' attorney fees for a specific portion of their countersuit. Clarke wrote that he "considers it undisputed that Couvrette is personally at fault" for withholding business assets from her brothers after their mother died.
The Local Counsel's Liability
Tim Murphy, the Oregon attorney who served as local counsel and vouched for Brigandi, was ordered to pay $14,200 in opposing counsel's legal fees. The judge found that Murphy violated local court rules by failing to "meaningfully participate in the case."
Murphy said he neither drafted nor reviewed the problematic filings. In a court filing, he wrote that he was "embarrassed to have his name associated with this case" and regretted agreeing to serve as local counsel.
"Never in my wildest dreams did I think 'failure to participate' would result in something like this," Murphy said in an interview. He acknowledged he could have overseen Brigandi's work more closely and said he was considering an appeal.
The Broader Context
Courts across the country are grappling with attorney misuse of generative AI. Damien Charlotin, a French attorney who tracks such cases worldwide, said the sanctions against Brigandi and Murphy were "the highest so far" in the U.S.
The case demonstrates a core problem: generative AI systems can produce plausible-sounding but entirely fabricated legal citations. Attorneys bear responsibility for verifying all citations before filing, regardless of whether they personally drafted the documents.
For legal professionals using AI tools in research, document review, or brief preparation, the Oregon case underscores the importance of independent verification. Understanding AI for Legal practice includes knowing where these systems fail and how to implement safeguards. AI Learning Path for Paralegals covers legal research automation and the verification protocols necessary to prevent hallucination errors.
Your membership also unlocks:
