Menu ▾
Start sealing, $349/mo Live demos For attorneys Standing orders Sanctions record Verify free Enterprise Pick what it does Why now Pick the problem Start where you stand The Drift Desk What is a standing order Sanctioned for AI citations Privilege and AI Detectors compared Authorship marks compared When the law changes The 124 laws The products Pricing The Regulayer Receipt HumanMark The free Sealer For insurers Support Open verifier About FAQ Legal

The sanctions record · Nebraska Supreme Court, United States

Nebraska: suspended until further notice

Nebraska Supreme Court · suspension order of the Chief Justice · 16 April 2026

Page verified 5 August 2026. We could not open the orders from this session, so everything below is recorded from contemporaneous reporting and official statements rather than quoted from the document. We say so rather than imply we read it.

Nine citations in ten were defective, and the court did not reach for a fine. It reached for the practising licence. Suspended from the practice of law until further notice, in a one-page order from the Chief Justice.

What happened

  • The briefA divorce appeal filed with the Nebraska Supreme Court by Omaha attorney Greg Lake.
  • The scaleAs reported, 57 of 63 citations defective, including entirely fabricated cases and a substantial number of hallucinated references.
  • The admissionHe admitted using artificial intelligence to draft the brief.
  • 9 Apr 2026The court blasts AI-authored filings and recommends discipline.
  • 16 Apr 2026The Chief Justice files a one-page document suspending him from the practice of law until further notice.

Why this one is different

Two features set it apart from the rest of the American record.

  • ProportionMost matters here involve a handful of bad citations inside a brief that is otherwise the lawyer’s own work. Nine in ten defective is a different fact pattern: it describes a document that was substantially not checked at all.
  • RemedyThe court went past money. Compare Couvrette v. Wisnovsky, where the sanction was over $110,000 and the lawyers kept practising. A suspension until further notice has no ceiling and no end date on its face.

Set beside Farris, where counsel lost his fee and his place in the case, and the Ninth Circuit’s six-month suspensions, it completes a clear 2026 shift: American courts have stopped treating this as a costs question.

What it changes

It is the answer to the calculation a firm makes when it reads a $2,500 fine and decides the risk is affordable. The exposure is not the fine. It is the practising certificate, and Nebraska is the American proof of that, alongside the Victorian Legal Services Board in Australia, which took a lawyer’s principal status, his trust account and his firm for two years.

What to do about it

Seven days free, then $349 a month.

Fifty-seven defective citations in one brief is not a verification failure at the margin. It is the absence of any record of checking at all, and it cost a practising licence. A signed record of which AI you used and what a person checked, sealed to the exact file you deliver, made on your own machine and checkable free by anyone you send it to.

Start the free weekOr verify a real record, free →

For a firm rather than a practitioner, the same engine runs across the estate: Regulayer for enterprise. See also the attorney certification and every jurisdiction we track.

Sources

  • Nebraska Supreme Court suspension order, 16 April 2026. Not opened from this session.
  • Recorded from contemporaneous reporting, including WOWT and Nebraska Public Media. Counts of defective citations vary slightly between reports; we give the figure most consistently reported and flag it as reported.

Related

Checked 5 August 2026. The court’s orders were not read at source. Treat the detail as reported until they are pulled.

Common questions

What happened in the Nebraska AI citation case?

An Omaha attorney filed a brief in a divorce appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court in which 57 of 63 citations were defective, including entirely fabricated cases and a large number of hallucinated references. He admitted using artificial intelligence to draft the brief. On 16 April 2026 the Chief Justice suspended him from the practice of law until further notice from the court.

Can a lawyer be suspended for using AI?

Not for using it. Lawyers have been suspended for filing its unverified output. Nebraska suspended an attorney until further notice, and the Ninth Circuit suspended two attorneys from practice before that court for six months. Neither court prohibited AI; both punished filing without verification.

How is suspension different from a fine?

A fine is paid once and the practice continues. A suspension stops the practice, which means client files must move, matters are disrupted, and the fact is public and permanent on the lawyer's record. Of everything on this record, suspension and the loss of a principal practising certificate are the two outcomes that end a business rather than cost it money.

What proportion of citations were wrong?

As reported, 57 of 63, which is roughly nine in ten. The scale is what distinguishes this matter: most cases on this record involve a handful of bad citations in an otherwise sound brief.

Information, not legal advice, and not advice on the law of any jurisdiction. Every entry is verified against the issuing body’s own document; where a source is reporting rather than the document, we say so.