Couvrette v. Wisnovsky
Episode 13
“[I]n 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…”
Magistrate Judge Clarke, in Couvrette v. Wisnovsky
The case
The volume case, and the evasiveness case. A family winery dispute produced the largest AI-hallucination penalty an Oregon federal judge had imposed, and the court's reasoning names the two aggravators plainly: the sheer number of fabrications, and a pair of lawyers who were, in its words, "not adequately forthcoming, candid or apologetic." The opinion also records how close this came to terminating sanctions: "If there was ever an 'appropriate case' to grant terminating sanctions for the misuse of artificial intelligence, this is it."
What happened
San Diego attorney Stephen Brigandi filed documents in Couvrette v. Wisnovsky filled with fake cases and fabricated citations. Portland attorney Tim Murphy served as local counsel; Brigandi was not licensed in Oregon. When the errors surfaced, the court found neither lawyer adequately forthcoming about what had happened.
The rule and the sanction
The December 12, 2025 opinion imposed a $15,500 fine on Brigandi and awarded attorney fees; the March 23, 2026 order quantified the fees at $94,704.38, for fines and fees totaling $110,204.38. Judge Clarke called the case "a notorious outlier in both degree and volume" in the expanding universe of AI-misuse sanctions.
How it could have been avoided
Volume and evasiveness are aggravators, and both are choices. When errors are discovered, be forthcoming, candid, and apologetic immediately; the court cited the absence of all three. And out-of-state lead counsel and local counsel should agree in writing, before filing, on who verifies every citation.
Watch the episode
This case is covered in Episode 13: The Price List (watch on YouTube).