{"id":565971,"date":"2026-04-05T12:17:16","date_gmt":"2026-04-05T12:17:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/565971\/"},"modified":"2026-04-05T12:17:16","modified_gmt":"2026-04-05T12:17:16","slug":"san-diego-attorney-hit-with-96k-in-sanctions-for-ai-misuse","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/565971\/","title":{"rendered":"San Diego attorney hit with $96K in sanctions for AI misuse"},"content":{"rendered":"

An Oregon judge has ordered a San Diego attorney to pay nearly $96,000 in penalties for submitting briefs in a lawsuit that contained more than 20 nonexistent legal citations that were hallucinated by generative artificial intelligence<\/a> \u2014 though the attorney contends he was not the one who drafted the briefs, and the judge said there is \u201cpersuasive evidence\u201d the attorney\u2019s San Diego client was responsible.<\/p>\n

The penalties imposed on attorney Stephen Brigandi include $15,500 in disciplinary sanctions and nearly $80,500 in opposing counsel\u2019s legal fees. That amounts to what is believed to be one of the largest ever monetary penalties \u2014 if not the largest ever \u2014 imposed on an attorney in the U.S. for submitting legal documents containing AI hallucinations.<\/p>\n

A second attorney in the case, which deals with a family dispute over an Oregon vineyard and winery, was also ordered to pay more than $14,200 in opposing counsel\u2019s legal fees, raising the total monetary penalties north of $110,000. Additionally, the judge took the rare and drastic step of permanently dismissing all legal claims brought by Brigandi\u2019s client, San Diego resident Joanne Couvrette, against her brothers in the winery dispute.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn the quickly expanding universe of cases involving sanctions for the misuse of artificial intelligence, this case is a notorious outlier in both degree and volume,\u201d U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke, from the District of Oregon, wrote in a lengthy opinion.<\/p>\n

Damien Charlotin, a French attorney who tracks such cases around the world<\/a>, said he believed the sanctions against Brigandi and the other attorney were \u201cthe highest so far\u201d in the U.S.<\/p>\n

Brigandi acknowledges that generative AI was used in the case, but adamantly denies that he personally used it or that he even drafted the three documents that contained the hallucinated legal citations. But when asked who drafted the documents, he said he had to be careful about attorney-client privilege.<\/p>\n

The judge opined that Brigandi\u2019s client, Couvrette, likely drafted the offending documents. He wrote that she shared responsibility with Brigandi for submitting the filings, and that her brothers\u2019 attorneys had submitted \u201cpersuasive 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

The judge said Couvrette and Brigandi failed to dispute that evidence in court. \u201cMs. Couvrette\u2019s and Mr. Brigandi\u2019s silence, despite multiple opportunities to explain their side of the story, speaks volumes,\u201d Clarke wrote.<\/p>\n

Couvrette and her current attorneys in the case did not respond to multiple messages seeking comment.<\/p>\n

Couvrette was the executive director of the Canyon Crest Academy Foundation when two students at the public high school published a report criticizing<\/a> the nonprofit foundation\u2019s finances. The report spurred an audit<\/a> that confirmed financial mismanagement<\/a> by the foundation she led and other similar foundations within the San Dieguito Union High School District.<\/p>\n

Couvrette has since sued the foundation, alleging she was fired from her executive director position in 2024 over a controversial statement she made on her personal Facebook page. That lawsuit is still pending in San Diego Superior Court.<\/p>\n

\u2018I did not draft the document\u2019<\/p>\n

The legal dispute at the heart of the Oregon case is a classic family drama pitting adult siblings against each other in seeking control of a lucrative family asset in the final years of their ailing mother\u2019s life. In this case, the asset is Valley View Winery in southwestern Oregon.<\/p>\n

The details of the lawsuit, filed in January 2021 in Oregon federal court, are mostly irrelevant, except to those in the Wisnovsky family with a financial interest in the case. The San Diego connection lies with Couvrette, the eldest sibling in the Wisnovsky family, who filed the lawsuit against her two youngest brothers, Mark and Michael Wisnovsky.<\/p>\n

Brigandi joined the litigation nearly three years after it began, in early 2024. Because he is not licensed to practice in Oregon federal court, he had to receive special permission to represent Couvrette, and an Oregon attorney was required to join the case as local counsel and essentially vouch for the San Diego attorney.<\/p>\n

Brigandi told the Union-Tribune that Couvrette was a family friend and he represented her pro bono.<\/p>\n

In early 2025, Brigandi filed the first motion that contained fabricated legal citations. In the months that followed, he filed two more motions containing AI-hallucinated case law. In total, the three filings contained citations to 15 nonexistent cases and eight fabricated quotes falsely attributed to legitimate legal authorities.<\/p>\n

But Brigandi is adamant that he is not responsible for the misuse of generative AI.<\/p>\n

\u201cI did not draft the document,\u201d he told the Union-Tribune.<\/p>\n

In a letter responding to an Oregon State Bar investigation, Brigandi acknowledged that the motions in question \u201ccontained GAI material\u201d and that \u201csome of the drafting involved the use of GAI.\u201d But in both his response to the state bar and his interview with the Union-Tribune, he flatly denied he had drafted those documents while acknowledging that he should have reviewed them more thoroughly.<\/p>\n

\u201cWas it a mistake to not check all of the citations? I suppose so,\u201d he said over the phone last week.<\/p>\n

Oregon attorney Tim Murphy, who acted as local counsel for Couvrette and vouched for Brigandi, said he neither drafted nor reviewed the filings in question.<\/p>\n

\u201c(Murphy) had absolutely no involvement in the citation of the fake cases at issue, he is embarrassed to have his name associated with this case, and regrets that he ever agreed to serve as local counsel for Ms. Couvrette and Mr. Brigandi,\u201d Murphy wrote in a court filing explaining his role in the matter.<\/p>\n

In an opinion addressing Murphy\u2019s responsibility, the judge acknowledged his more limited role, but found that he broke local court rules because he \u201cfailed to meaningfully participate in the case.\u201d The judge imposed upon Murphy 15% of the opposing counsel\u2019s legal fees, amounting to $14,200.<\/p>\n

\u201cNever in my wildest dreams did I think \u2018failure to participate\u2019 would result in something like this,\u201d Murphy said in a phone interview from Oregon this week. Murphy reiterated his embarrassment about having his name connected with the case and said he was still considering his options to appeal the sanctions the judge imposed against him.<\/p>\n

Like Brigandi, Murphy acknowledged he could have done a better job overseeing the case. \u201cIt\u2019s my fault I was not watching over Brigandi closely enough,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Also like Brigandi, when asked about who drafted the motions that contained the fake legal authorities, Murphy cited \u201cclient confidentiality issues.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2018Plaintiffs are still in hot water\u2019<\/p>\n

While the judge did not outright rule that Couvrette drafted the documents containing the AI-hallucinated legal citations, he acknowledged that the evidence that she did so was \u201cpersuasive.\u201d<\/p>\n

That evidence was presented in court filings by Couvrette\u2019s two younger brothers and their attorneys, who alleged that Couvrette had represented herself in multiple legal cases in the past and \u201cproudly boasted of her substantial pro se litigation experience.\u201d They alleged that Couvrette had even represented herself in two lawsuits filed in Oregon state court that were related to the same matters being litigated in the federal case.<\/p>\n

\u201cOnly a few months ago Couvrette filed in the Oregon court of appeals two legal briefs containing fake cases that are very similar in form and appearance to the three sanctionable briefs Plaintiffs filed in this case,\u201d her brothers\u2019 attorneys wrote in an August filing. They added that instead of providing answers about her role in filing the briefs, she \u201cdecided to cast all blame on Brigandi.\u201d<\/p>\n

The brothers and their attorneys asked the judge to sanction Couvrette personally, not just her attorneys. Clarke declined to do so. \u201cHowever, Plaintiffs are still in hot water,\u201d the judge wrote.<\/p>\n

That \u201chot water\u201d manifested in Clarke dismissing all legal claims brought by Couvrette, who he said had decided to \u201cstonewall\u201d instead of providing answers to the court about the filings in question.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf there was ever an \u2018appropriate case\u2019 to grant terminating sanctions for the misuse of artificial intelligence, this is it,\u201d the judge wrote.<\/p>\n

In a follow-up order this week, the judge dismissed all remaining claims in the case and ruled that Couvrette must personally pay her brothers\u2019 attorney fees for a specific part of a countersuit they filed. The judge wrote that he \u201cconsiders it undisputed that Couvrette is personally at fault\u201d for withholding business assets from her brothers after their mother died.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"An Oregon judge has ordered a San Diego attorney to pay nearly $96,000 in penalties for submitting briefs…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":565972,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[45],"tags":[182,181,507,2356,2302,2558,983,3,7155,7156,74,2557],"class_list":{"0":"post-565971","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-artificial-intelligence","8":"tag-ai","9":"tag-artificial-intelligence","10":"tag-artificialintelligence","11":"tag-california","12":"tag-courts","13":"tag-latest-headlines","14":"tag-local-news","15":"tag-news","16":"tag-san-diego","17":"tag-san-diego-county","18":"tag-technology","19":"tag-top-stories-sdut"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/565971","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=565971"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/565971\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/565972"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=565971"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=565971"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=565971"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}