Nebraska AI License Suspension: What the Supreme Court Found and What It Signals

The Nebraska AI license suspension is the case where a state supreme court's discipline process took away an Omaha lawyer's ability to practice after an appellate brief full of fabricated authority. The court's own opinion, Prososki v. Regan, 321 Neb. 38 (Mar. 20, 2026), struck the brief, dismissed the appeal and referred the lawyer, W. Gregory Lake, to the Nebraska Counsel for Discipline. Local television then reported a temporary suspension in April 2026.

Reviewed and corrected on 11 October 2026. This is general information, not legal advice; check the cited opinion and rules before relying on it.

TL;DR

• The court opinion is the primary source. On March 20, 2026 the Nebraska Supreme Court struck the appellant's brief, dismissed the appeal and referred counsel to the Counsel for Discipline, citing its inherent authority and its existing rules of professional conduct.
• The temporary suspension rests on local news. WOWT reported on April 15, 2026 that the chief justice filed a one-page document suspending Lake from practice until further notice. We did not locate the order itself, so its exact date, wording and stated reasons are Not verified in our October 2026 review.
• The "57 of 63" figure is opposing counsel's count as reported by WOWT. The court made no such finding. The court's own chart lists 20 problem authorities, four of them labeled fictitious cases.
• The court said its analysis is the same whether or not AI was used. The rules it applied are Nebraska's own: candor, competence, diligence, frivolous claims and dishonesty.

Part of our legal AI verification and hallucination guide series.

For related verification and sanctions coverage, see AI Hallucinations in Legal Research: How to Avoid Sanctions and How to Verify AI Legal Citations Before You File (ABA 512 Checklist).

Official text, as of 11 October 2026

• Citation: Prososki v. Regan, 321 Neb. 38, No. S-25-295 (Neb. Mar. 20, 2026), per curiam.
• Quote: "We hold that the submission of fictitious authority to a court, whether through generative AI or not, can be resolved by application of our existing rules of professional conduct and court rules."
• Source: the Nebraska Supreme Court's Advance Sheets, 321 Nebraska Reports. The court's site did not respond to our automated link check, so open it in a normal browser; the court's case page for S-25-295 (argued February 3, 2026) loads normally.
• What changed in 2026: the court called the use of fictitious, potentially AI-generated cases, holdings and quotations "a novel issue for Nebraska courts" and answered it with its existing rules, then referred counsel to the Counsel for Discipline.

What the court found

The appellant's brief was filed on July 31, 2025. Opposing counsel moved to strike it and dismiss the appeal on August 26, 2025, alleging fictitious citations, real cases with incorrect holdings and nonexistent quotations. The Nebraska Attorney General appeared as amicus curiae.

Counsel answered with motions for leave to file a corrected brief. In them he said the citations were "sloppy" from "copying and pasting . . . from Westlaw without verifying the official reporter," that he did not rely on AI, and that his computer had suffered a "catastrophic screen crack" while he was traveling. The court overruled those motions, then heard the case.

The opinion's chart lists 20 authorities with problems. Four are labeled "Fictitious case" (Kennedy v. Kennedy, 27 Neb. App. 510; Miller v. Miller, 227 Neb. 71; State on behalf of Ricardo P. v. Christina R., 309 Neb. 705; and State v. Stricklin, 29 Neb. App. 367). Others are real cases with fictitious quotations or holdings, cases with incorrect citations, and a real statute and two real court rules (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2923 and Neb. Ct. R. §§ 4-204 and 4-215) with fictitious quotations.

The Kennedy v. Kennedy entry is a good example of how this goes wrong. The court said "Kennedy v. Kennedy" is the name of a real case, an unpublished 2019 Court of Appeals memorandum opinion, but that it does not match the citation given, does not discuss parenting time, and does not contain the block quotation the brief attributed to it. The court's chart calls the citation a "fictitious case using real case name." The brief cited it five times.

The court said a simple search of Westlaw and LexisNexis, the Nebraska Revised Statutes, the Supreme Court rules or "the free Nebraska Appellate Courts Online Library" would have shown that the quotations and the Kennedy case did not exist.

The court also noted that counsel conceded, only after being pressed from the bench at oral argument, that the cited authority was not properly grounded in Nebraska law, despite his earlier assertion to the contrary. It called the assertion that he filed the wrong draft not credible. It did not decide whether AI was used.

The sanction in the opinion was to strike the brief and dismiss the appeal under the court's inherent authority. The court left open the appellee's ability to seek attorney fees and referred counsel to the Counsel for Discipline.

What is reported about the suspension

Everything in this section comes from local television reporting. We have not seen the order or the Counsel for Discipline's filings.

• The order. WOWT reported on April 15, 2026 (its URL carries April 16) that the chief justice "filed a one-page document" suspending Omaha attorney Greg Lake "from the practice of law until further notice from the court." The same report appears on KNOP and 1011now. The exact order date is Not verified in our October 2026 review. Check the Nebraska Supreme Court's attorney discipline records.
• The affidavit. WOWT reported that Lake had sent the court an affidavit two days earlier, arguing against a temporary suspension, in which he admitted for the first time using AI to write the brief and called his failure to be forthright a "grave error of judgment." We did not read the affidavit.
• The oral argument. WOWT quoted Lake telling the court his computer broke on his wedding anniversary trip and that he uploaded the wrong version of the brief, and answering "No, I did not" when the court pressed him on whether he used AI.
• What happens next. WOWT described a temporary suspension, with a full investigation and disciplinary hearing, and a court-appointed referee recommending the length of any suspension. We could not confirm the order's wording or the court's reasons.

The court's reasons and the final sanction are not published in anything we could read. Treat any article, including older versions of this one, that states the reasons for the suspension as unconfirmed.

Why a license consequence differs from a court sanction

Mata v. Avianca, 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023), is the best-known sanctions case. The June 22, 2023 opinion required the lawyers to send letters to their client and to each judge whose name was used on a fake opinion, and imposed a $5,000 penalty jointly and severally on the respondents. The Nebraska court cited Mata and applied the same idea to its own rules.

A court sanction sits inside the litigation. Attorney discipline is a separate proceeding under the state supreme court's exclusive disciplinary jurisdiction over the lawyers it admits. In Nebraska the opinion points to Neb. Ct. R. §§ 3-301 and 3-303(B). A suspension stops the lawyer from appearing for clients for as long as it lasts.

Whether a suspension in one state triggers action in other states where the lawyer is admitted depends on each state's reciprocal-discipline rule, and whether a temporary suspension counts varies. Not verified in our October 2026 review. Check each state's rule.

The rules Nebraska applied

The court did not rely on a new AI rule and did not cite ABA Formal Opinion 512. It applied these Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct:

• § 3-503.3(a)(1), candor toward the tribunal. A lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct one previously made. The court agreed with courts holding that conscious avoidance, or failing to adequately review a brief and verify that the law is good law, satisfies "knowingly." It added that even if the first submission was not knowing, counsel did not try to correct the false statements until after the motion to strike.
• § 3-501.1, competence. The court quoted comment 6, which includes keeping abreast of "the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology."
• § 3-501.3, diligence.
• § 3-503.1, frivolous claims. Citing a fake opinion does not provide a nonfrivolous basis for a position.
• § 3-508.4(c), dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. The court said proof of actual intent to deceive is not required; the focus is on the effect of the lawyer's conduct.

ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 29, 2024) addresses generative AI and the Model Rules. Our guide to whether ABA Formal Opinions are binding covers how much weight it carries. The Nebraska opinion does not cite it.

Where this sits among other discipline reports

Be careful with "first." We could not confirm that no earlier state supreme court suspended a lawyer on a similar fact pattern, and the Nebraska suspension described above was reported as temporary.

• Colorado. eDiscovery Today reported in November 2023, citing CBS News, that a judge ordered Zachariah Crabill suspended for one year and one day, with the remainder forgiven if he completes a 90-day suspension and two years of probation. The report says he blamed a legal intern when the judge asked, then filed an affidavit saying he used ChatGPT. See the report. We did not read the Colorado order.
• Minnesota. MPR News reported on August 21, 2026 that the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition for disciplinary action with the Minnesota Supreme Court, and that Faisal S. Ahmed agreed to a 30-day suspension after citing two nonexistent cases in a Hennepin County filing. A Minnesota Lawyer column dated October 6, 2026 describes the matter as pending, with a joint stipulation recommending a reprimand and a 30-day suspension. We could not confirm the Minnesota Supreme Court has entered the order. See MPR's report.

The Nebraska brief's problems were mostly with case law, but the court also found fictitious quotations from a Nebraska statute and two court rules. Checking those against the official text is quick. Nebraska named its own free Appellate Courts Online Library as a place to check cases.

How big is the problem

Damien Charlotin's AI Hallucination Cases database listed 2,184 cases as of its 10 October 2026 update, 1,492 of them from US courts, with 864 involving a lawyer as the party. It tracks decisions in which a court found or implied that a party relied on hallucinated content, not every fake citation filed. See the database. The count changes as cases are added, so check the live page before quoting it.

What lawyers should do

• Verify every AI-assisted citation and quotation against the primary source. The court described the check in plain terms: a legal database, the statute books, the court rules or the court's free online library.
• Check quotations, not just case names. Most of the problems in the Nebraska chart were fictitious quotations and holdings attached to real cases, statutes and rules.
• Name who verified, and date it. A one-line note in the matter file saying who checked which authorities, and when, is cheap. We have no source for how much it helps in a disciplinary proceeding.
• Correct the record quickly. The court counted counsel's failure to correct the false statements after the motion to strike against him on candor.
• Follow court AI rules. Many federal judges and courts have standing orders or local rules on AI in filings, and they change often. Check the judge's and the court's current rules.
• Have a written policy. Say which tools are approved, what verification is required and who signs off.

FAQ

What is the Nebraska AI license suspension?

It is the April 2026 temporary suspension of Omaha lawyer W. Gregory Lake that local news reported after the Nebraska Supreme Court's March 20, 2026 opinion in Prososki v. Regan, which struck his brief for fictitious authority and referred him to the Counsel for Discipline. We read the opinion. We did not locate the suspension order, so its date and reasons are Not verified in our October 2026 review.

Did the Nebraska court find 57 of 63 citations were fake?

No. WOWT reported that "by the opposing counsel's count" 57 of 63 references had a problem. The court's own chart lists 20 authorities with problems, four of them labeled fictitious cases.

Is Kennedy v. Kennedy a nonexistent case?

The case as cited is fictitious. The court said a real Nebraska Court of Appeals unpublished memorandum opinion from 2019 has that name, but it does not match the citation given, does not discuss the proposition the brief used it for, and does not contain the quoted block.

Was this the first lawyer suspended for AI-fabricated citations?

We cannot say. A Colorado suspension was reported in November 2023, and a Minnesota stipulated 30-day suspension was reported as pending as of October 2026. Nebraska's was reported as temporary.

Can a lawyer be suspended for using AI?

Using AI is not itself the issue in the Nebraska opinion. The court said the obligations of candor, competency, diligence and good faith arguments remain the same whether or not AI is used, and it applied its existing rules to fictitious authority. The final outcome for Lake depends on the disciplinary process.

Which ethics rules did Nebraska apply?

Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. §§ 3-503.3(a)(1), 3-501.1, 3-501.3, 3-503.1 and 3-508.4(c). The opinion does not cite ABA Formal Opinion 512.

How do I avoid an AI hallucination sanction?

Open every citation and quotation in the source before filing, keep a dated note of who checked it, and correct any error as soon as it is flagged. The pre-filing verification checklist walks through the steps, and the hallucination tracker post covers how often this still happens.

For the US statutes, regulations and court rules these laws sit in, see the US primary law API.

Arshita Anand

Co-Founder & CEO · Attorney

Arshita leads product and strategy at Vaquill AI, the US primary law data API. As an attorney, she decides which law we carry, how each section is sourced and cited, and what legal AI and compliance teams need from the data.