OADC_AC26_CLE-book_v2 (1)

2026 OADC ANNUAL CONFERENCE

CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION GUIDEBOOK JUNE 18 -20, 2026 SKAMANIA LODGE

CONTENTS 4

Download The Oadc Mobile App

5

Friday Schedule at a Glance

6

Saturday Schedule at a Glance

7

Speaker Profiles

18

Sessions

Tips from the Bench The Supreme Court: A Momentous Term and a Look Ahead Appellate Update Bad Faith/Moody Nuclear Verdicts The Pros, Cons, and Ethical Pitfalls of AI

2026 OADC Lifetime Achievement AWA R D W I N N E R

LOU KURTZ

2026 OADC Attorney on the Rise AWA R D W I N N E R

JOSEPH PICKELS

CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION GUIDEBOOK

DOWNLOAD THE OADC MOBILE APP

FOR A MORE COHESIVE AND CONNECTED CONFERENCE Connect with other members, view the schedule, and more!

2026 OADC ANNUAL CONFERENCE

4

CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION GUIDEBOOK

FRIDAY SCHEDULE AT A GLANCE 7:00 AM - 7:45 AM

Registration & Breakfast

7:45 AM - 8:00 AM

Welcome & Introductions

8:00 AM - 9:00 AM

Tips from the Bench: Judge Adrian Lee Brown, Judge Andrew Hallman, & Judge Ricardo Menchaca,

9:00 AM - 9:15 AM

Break

9:15 AM - 10:45 AM

The Supreme Court: A Momentous Term and a Look Ahead: Thomas Dupree

10:45 AM - 11:00 AM

Break

11:00 AM - 12:00 PM

Appellate Update with Jonathan Henderson, Julie Smith & Judge Steven Powers

12:00 PM - 1:00 PM

Bad Faith/Moody: Bryce Adams

1:00 PM - 4:30 PM

Member Leisure Time

4:30 PM - 5:30 PM

Women in Law Reception

5:30 PM - 7:30 PM

All Member Reception

2026 OADC ANNUAL CONFERENCE

5

CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION GUIDEBOOK

SATURDAY SCHEDULE AT A GLANCE 7:30 AM - 8:30 AM

Registration & Breakfast

8:15 AM - 8:30 AM

Awards Program

8:30 AM - 10:30 AM

Nuclear Verdicts: Sitar Bhatt

10:30 AM - 11:00 AM

Networking Break with OADC Exhibitors

11:00 AM - 12:00 PM

The Pros, Cons, and Ethical Pitfalls of AI: Scott Kveton & Sarah Tuthill-Kveton

12:00 PM

Convention Concludes

2026 OADC ANNUAL CONFERENCE

6

CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION GUIDEBOOK

BRYCE ADAMS Bryce Adams is a partner at the Portland office of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, where he helps lead an insurance litigation team that includes many of Oregon’s most experienced and successful coverage attorneys. He specializes in representing multinational property insurers across the public and private sectors in active litigation.

Within OADC, Bryce is a prolific writer, speaker, and thought leader on the rapidly evolving issue of bad faith litigation against property insurers, which has turned Oregon into one of the industry’s highest volume litigation venues in less than five years. His key interest is in crafting novel defense theories that break the nexus between insurer claim handling, emotional distress allegations, and a policyholder’s quantum of cognizable bad faith damages. As cochair of OADC’s Coverage Practice Group, Bryce works to connect different aspects of the defense bar – be it construction defect, professional liability, or products liability – into a unified community of practitioners who collaborate to stop bad actors from exploiting this new tort doctrine to irreparably damage Oregon’s uniquely collegial legal culture.

2026 OADC ANNUAL CONFERENCE

7

CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION GUIDEBOOK

SPEAKER PROFILES S I TA R B H AT T Sitar Bhatt is the Tyson & Mendes Scottsdale and Seattle Branch Office Managing Partner. His practice focuses primarily on general liability, personal injury, premises liability, professional liability, employment, and bad faith litigation. Mr. Bhatt has successfully represented individuals and businesses in Arizona state and federal district courts as well as arbitrations. Mr. Bhatt also chairs the Tyson & Mendes Young Professionals Group.

Mr. Bhatt has successfully resolved a variety of cases involving complex personal injury, property damage, employment claims, and insurance coverage. Mr. Bhatt has prevailed at multiple arbitrations, saving his clients substantial sums. He has also successfully settled multiple bodily injury and property damage cases.

Mr. Bhatt earned his J.D. in 2011 from Arizona Summit Law School. He is licensed to practice law in Arizona. Mr. Bhatt is a member of the Arizona Association of Defense Counsel. Additionally, he has been selected to the Southwest Rising Stars list for Super Lawyers from 2016 – 2022 and CLM’s Phenoms Under 40 in 2024. Mr. Bhatt is an Associate Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, The Trial Lawyer Honorary Society, and a member of the Trial Law Institute and Diversity Law Institute.

2026 OADC ANNUAL CONFERENCE

8

CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION GUIDEBOOK

ADRIAN LEE BROWN Judge Brown (she/her) is a Circuit Court Judge in Multnomah County. As a general bench trial court judge she presides over civil and criminal matters and trials. Prior to her election Judge Brown was a trial attorney for 20 years – serving as a JAG Officer in the U.S. Air Force, and as an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) in the District of Oregon. Her litigation experience includes trying complex civil and criminal cases, both as a prosecutor and a defender.

Judge Brown received her Juris Doctorate Degree from Lewis & Clark Law School; and faculty selected her for the Cornelius Honor Society recognizing her leadership as a student. She obtained her Bachelor of Science Degree with High Distinction in Public Policy from Indiana University, Bloomington.

2026 OADC ANNUAL CONFERENCE

9

CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION GUIDEBOOK

T H O M AS D U P R E E Thomas H. Dupree returns to the OADC Convention following his popular presentation in 2022. He is co-partner in charge of the Washington, DC office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, co-chair of the firm’s nationwide Appellate and Constitutional Law practice group, and a member of the firm’s litigation department. Mr. Dupree is an experienced trial and appellate advocate. He has argued more than 100 appeals in the federal courts, including in all thirteen circuits as well as the United States Supreme Court.

He has represented clients throughout the country in a wide variety of trial and appellate matters, including cases involving punitive damages, class actions, product liability, arbitration, intellectual property, employment, and constitutional challenges to federal and state statutes. Chambers and Partners has named Mr. Dupree one of the leading appellate lawyers in the United States every year from 2012 through 2023, and The Legal 500 has similarly recognized Mr. Dupree for years as one of the nation’s “leading lawyers.” Mr. Dupree previously served in the United States Department of Justice. He was appointed Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, and later became the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General. In that capacity, he served as the division’s second-in-command, overseeing the more than 900 lawyers in the Civil Appellate, Commercial, Federal Programs and Torts branches, as well as the Office of Immigration Litigation and the Office of Consumer Litigation. Mr. Dupree was responsible for managing many of the government’s most significant cases involving regulatory, commercial, constitutional and national security matters on behalf of virtually all of the federal agencies, the White House, and senior federal officials. Before being named the division’s top deputy, Mr. Dupree ran its largest litigating branch, managing a staff of 280 lawyers. Legal Times has called Mr. Dupree “no stranger to high-profile work.” Among other things, he played a substantial role in the successful representation of George W. Bush before the United States Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, and represented New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady in challenging his “Deflategate” suspension. Mr. Dupree argued and won, by a unanimous 9-0 vote, a landmark personal jurisdiction case in the United States Supreme Court, Daimler AG v. Bauman. For this achievement, American Lawyer magazine named him Litigator of the Week, noting that he “won over both the liberal and conservative wings of the court.” In 2021, American Lawyer again named Mr. Dupree its Litigator of the Week. This time he was recognized for winning a highprofile appeal in the midst of the chaos enveloping the U.S. Capitol on January 6.

2026 OADC ANNUAL CONFERENCE

10

CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION GUIDEBOOK

JUDGE ANDREW HALLMAN Judge Andrew Hallman serves as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Oregon, having been appointed to the bench in 2021. A graduate of the University of Oregon and the University of Oregon School of Law, he spent more than a decade with the Oregon Department of Justice, rising to Assistant Attorney-in-Charge of the Civil Litigation Section.

2026 OADC ANNUAL CONFERENCE

11

CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION GUIDEBOOK

J O N AT H A N H E N D E R S O N Jonathan Henderson specializes in civil appeals, and has spent nearly 20 years handling appellate matters involving a wide range of issues. He has represented appellants and respondents, defendants and plaintiffs. He also has years of experience arguing hundreds of motions in Oregon and Washington trial courts.

Jonathan has handled dozens of appellate matters in the Oregon and Washington courts of appeal, the Oregon Supreme Court, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, receiving favorable published decisions from each. He was drawn to Davis Rothwell for the breadth of experience it offers, as well as the people-oriented atmosphere.

Jonathan was born in Eugene, Oregon, and raised on a mushroom farm in a rural area of the central Willamette Valley. He spends his free time with his family and is a local amateur competitive powerlifter and holds state powerlifting records with his sights on a national title for his age and weight.

2026 OADC ANNUAL CONFERENCE

12

CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION GUIDEBOOK

S C OT T K VE TO N Scott Kveton is a passionate entrepreneur with more than 20 years of experience in building companies across the web1, web2, and web3 domains, now venturing into the generativeAI space. He has co-founded several successful companies, including Urban Airship (now Airship), Odava, Jump, and Bac’n. Kveton’s early career was rooted in technology, contributing significantly to the Open Source Lab, OpenID, and OAuth. In 2007, he pivoted to focus more on the business aspects of his ventures. His efforts have led to raising substantial funds, orchestrating large deals, and establishing companies renowned for their outstanding cultures.

Recognized as a leader in his field, Kveton was named to Red Herring’s list of ‘25 Titans in waiting’ in early 2007 and received the Entrepreneur’s Award for Individual Achievement from the Oregon Entrepreneurs Network in 2012. Known for his love of public speaking on mobile technology and innovation, he also harbors a passion for pizza making, meat smoking, cryptocurrency, and bacon. A dedicated father and husband, he resides in Portland, OR.

2026 OADC ANNUAL CONFERENCE

13

CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION GUIDEBOOK

JUDGE RICARDO MENCHACA Judge Ricardo Menchaca has served on the Washington County Circuit Court since 2013, following a diverse legal career that included service as a public defender, Assistant Attorney General, private practitioner, and trial attorney with Smith Freed & Eberhard. He is a former OADC member. A proud Oregon native and U.S. Air Force veteran who served during Desert Shield and Desert Storm, Judge Menchaca is known for his commitment to fairness, compassion, and the rule of law.

2026 OADC ANNUAL CONFERENCE

14

CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION GUIDEBOOK

JUDGE STEVEN POWERS Judge Steven Powers has served on the Oregon Court of Appeals since July 2017.

Judge Powers was a civil litigator in private practice where he represented clients in insurance coverage disputes and in appellate matters. While at the Oregon Department of Justice, he served in the Appellate Division where he handled a wide range of civil, criminal, and administrative appeals before the Oregon Court of Appeals, Oregon Supreme Court, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United States. He was a founding board member of the Oregon Filipino American Lawyers Association as well as an active member of the Oregon Minority Lawyers Association and the Oregon Asian Pacific American Bar Association.

Judge Powers earned his B.A. from Western State College of Colorado (now known as Western Colorado University) and J.D. from Willamette University College of Law. He has volunteered with the Classroom Law Project to enhance civic education and engagement, and he has served as a mentor to high-school students, law students, and newly admitted attorneys. Judge Powers has served on the Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability since 2018, and frequently presents on various law-related topics for judges, lawyers, and students.

2026 OADC ANNUAL CONFERENCE

15

CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION GUIDEBOOK

JULIE SMITH Julie Smith is an experienced appellate lawyer who also advises trial attorneys on litigation strategy and the development of complex motions. She works closely with trial teams to identify key legal issues, shape arguments, and ensure that cases are well-positioned both at trial and on appeal. Her appellate practice includes evaluating potential appeals, developing strategy, drafting briefs—including amicus briefs—and presenting oral argument.

Before joining Cosgrave, Julie served as an Assistant Attorney General in both the Trial and Appellate Divisions of the Oregon Department of Justice, where she was twice recognized with the department’s Outstanding Achievement Award. Earlier in her career, she clerked for the Honorable Virginia Linder of the Oregon Court of Appeals.

In addition to her appellate work, Julie provides comprehensive litigation support, including drafting and arguing dispositive and post-trial motions, preparing trial submissions, and attending trial to ensure a strong record and proper preservation of issues for appeal.

2026 OADC ANNUAL CONFERENCE

16

CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION GUIDEBOOK

S A R A H T U T H I L L - K VE TO N Sarah Tuthill-Kveton is an experienced litigator who defends clients in matters including motor vehicle collisions, premises liability, professional malpractice, and personal injury claims. She also represents independent contractors in the gig economy and retailers across the Northwest.

Licensed in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, Sarah brings a strong regional perspective to her practice.

She began her career as a public defender, developing strong courtroom skills and a commitment to justice before transitioning to civil defense in 2013. Known for her effective and approachable presence, she navigates complex, high-conflict litigation with a focus on efficient, strategic outcomes.

Sarah also embraces innovation, integrating legal technology and AI to enhance client advocacy.

Outside of work, she enjoys spending time with her family and staying active at the gym.

2026 OADC ANNUAL CONFERENCE

17

TIPS FROM THE BENCH

Friday, June 19, 2026 8:00am – 9:00am

Presented By: Judge Adrian Lee Brown Judge Andrew Hallman Judge Ricardo Menchaca

Tips from the Bench: AI and Self-Represented Litigants Introductory note from Judge Hallman: The written materials that follow were created entirely by Chat GPT, without any additional edits by me. I used the following prompt: Please draft a continuing legal education presentation from a judge's perspective entitled "tips from the bench: AI and self represented litigants" . The CLE should provide practice advice to civil defense lawyers for dealing with self represented litigants. Discuss the increasing use of AI by self represented litigants, and how that impacts the overall number of cases filed and the filings in each case. Include a list of practical tips for dealing with self represented litigants, such as checking their citations, engaging in direct conferral, using AI to respond, seeking sanctions for improper use of AI, and any other tips. Please include Oregon specific materials when available. The presentation is by the Honorable Andrew D. Hallman, Magistrate Judge, District of Oregon.

The creation of this document took me approximately 15 minutes. Some of the content in this document is excellent, and the document addresses the points I wanted to address. However, portions of this document are confusing or irrelevant, and the citations are both inconsistent and lacking. In other words, it resembles much of the AI generated content we see from selfrepresented litigants.

During my presentation, I will endeavor to provide you practical advice for understanding and responding to the use of AI by self-represented litigants. I will also use AI to generate motions and responses in real cases, as if I were a self-represented litigant.

-Hon. Andrew Hallman

AI Usage Disclosure: This document was created entirely with AI tools.

It has not been reviewed and edited by a human.

Tips From the Bench: AI and SelfRepresented Litigants Practical Guidance for Civil Defense Lawyers Hon. Andrew D. Hallman United States Magistrate Judge, District of Oregon

INTRODUCTION Artificial intelligence is changing civil litigation at every level, but nowhere is the impact more visible than in cases involving self-represented litigants (“SRLs” or “pro se litigants”).

Generative AI tools now allow non-lawyers to draft complaints, motions, discovery requests, and appellate briefs with a level of sophistication that would have been impossible only a few years ago.

From the bench, the results are unmistakable: • • • • • •

More cases are being filed; More motions are being filed within each case; Filings are becoming longer and more citation-heavy; Courts are increasingly encountering fabricated authority and inaccurate quotations; Conferral and discovery disputes are becoming more difficult to manage; Judicial resources are increasingly consumed by sorting through AI-generated filings.

At the same time, AI has also improved access to the courts. Some self-represented litigants are presenting claims more coherently, complying more effectively with procedural rules, and participating more meaningfully in litigation.

For civil defense lawyers, the challenge is not simply identifying AI use. The challenge is responding strategically, ethically, and efficiently while maintaining professionalism and credibility with the court.

This presentation offers practical observations from the bench about: 1.

2.

3.

4.

How AI is changing self-represented litigation; Common judicial concerns; Oregon-specific developments; Ethical and procedural risks; Page 2

AI Usage Disclosure: This document was created entirely with AI tools.

It has not been reviewed and edited by a human.

5. Practical defense strategies; 6. Sanctions and case-management tools; and 7. Best practices for maintaining credibility with the court.

I. THE NEW REALITY: AI HAS LOWERED THE BARRIERS TO FILING LITIGATION A. AI Has Reduced the Cost of Litigation Initiation Historically, many self-represented litigants struggled with: • • • • •

Drafting coherent complaints; Identifying causes of action; Formatting pleadings; Conducting legal research; Understanding procedural rules.

Generative AI tools now perform many of those tasks instantly and at little or no cost.

As a result, courts are seeing: • • • • • •

More sophisticated-looking pleadings; More extensive legal citations; Increased motion practice; More discovery disputes; More serial filings; More requests for emergency relief.

Recent scholarship suggests that the availability of generative AI correlates with a measurable increase in federal civil pro se filings and a significant increase in citation-dense pleadings. One recent empirical study reviewing approximately 2.8 million federal filings found that the federal civil pro se plaintiff rate rose substantially after the widespread availability of generative AI tools. The study also found that AI-associated filings tended to be more citation-heavy but were more likely to be dismissed early in the litigation. (arxiv.org)

B. The “More Professional Looking” Problem One emerging judicial concern is that AI-generated filings often appear more polished than they actually are.

Page 3

AI Usage Disclosure: This document was created entirely with AI tools.

It has not been reviewed and edited by a human.

A filing may: • • • • •

Use proper legal terminology; Include lengthy quotations; Cite multiple appellate decisions; Contain organized headings; Mimic attorney-written briefs.

Yet the substance may be deeply flawed.

Judges and law clerks increasingly encounter: • • • • • •

Nonexistent cases; Fabricated quotations; Misstated holdings; Citations that do not support the asserted proposition; Incorrect procedural standards; AI-generated factual assertions untethered to the record.

The challenge for courts is that AI-generated filings often require more time—not less—to review.

II. WHAT COURTS ARE SEEING A. Hallucinated Citations and Fabricated Authority Courts across the country have reported a dramatic increase in AI-generated hallucinations in legal filings.

Examples include: • • • • •

Cases that do not exist; Quotations fabricated by AI; Incorrect procedural rules; Fake record citations; Mischaracterized holdings.

Importantly, these problems are no longer limited to attorneys. Courts are increasingly encountering fabricated authority in filings submitted by self-represented litigants.

Page 4

AI Usage Disclosure: This document was created entirely with AI tools.

It has not been reviewed and edited by a human.

The Oregon Court of Appeals recently warned that AI-generated erroneous filings are “rapidly escalating” and specifically noted that the problem involves “lawyers and self-represented litigants alike.” (ijpr.org) The Oregon appellate courts also issued formal guidance warning litigants that filings containing fabricated authority generated by AI may result in sanctions, including: • • • •

Striking filings; Monetary sanctions; Attorney fee awards; Dismissal of appeals.

The Oregon guidance specifically instructs litigants to verify: 1.

2.

3.

4.

That all cited cases exist; That quotations actually appear in the cited source; That propositions are supported by the cited authority; That factual assertions are supported by the record.

(courts.oregon.gov)

B. Increased Volume of Motion Practice Many judges report that AI-assisted self-represented litigants file: • • • • •

More motions; Longer motions; Repetitive motions; Serial reconsideration requests; Excessive discovery filings.

The ease of generating legal prose lowers the natural friction that historically limited unnecessary filings.

The result can include: • • • •

Increased litigation costs; Expanded conferral disputes; Greater burden on chambers staff; Delayed case progression.

C. AI Makes Weak Claims Sound Strong Another practical challenge is that AI can make legally deficient claims appear facially plausible.

Page 5

AI Usage Disclosure: This document was created entirely with AI tools.

It has not been reviewed and edited by a human.

A complaint that would previously have been conclusory may now contain: • • • •

Extensive constitutional terminology; Complex statutory references; Multi-layered causes of action; Long quotations from case law.

But a polished complaint is not necessarily a viable complaint.

Defense counsel should remember: • • •

Courts still apply Twombly/Iqbal standards; Plausibility matters more than verbosity; Citation volume does not equal legal merit.

III. PRACTICE TIPS FOR CIVIL DEFENSE LAWYERS 1. VERIFY EVERY CITATION This is now essential practice.

If a self-represented litigant files a brief containing: • • • • •

Unfamiliar cases; Strange quotations; Odd pincites; Overly broad legal propositions; Inconsistent formatting;

verify every citation.

Warning signs of hallucinated authority include: • • • • •

Cases with generic party names; Quotations that cannot be found in Westlaw or Lexis; Cases purportedly from nonexistent courts; Citations that almost—but not quite—match real cases; Citations unsupported by the accompanying proposition.

Do not assume a citation is valid simply because it looks formal.

Page 6

AI Usage Disclosure: This document was created entirely with AI tools.

It has not been reviewed and edited by a human.

2. DO NOT OVERREACT TO AI USE Judges generally care less about whether AI was used and more about: • • • •

Accuracy; Candor; Compliance with procedural rules; Reasonableness.

Using AI itself is not misconduct.

Submitting false authority without verification may be.

Overheated accusations regarding AI use can undermine counsel’s credibility.

Instead: • • • •

Focus on objective inaccuracies; Demonstrate specific errors; Identify unsupported propositions; Explain prejudice or burden.

3. USE DIRECT CONFERRAL EARLY AND OFTEN One of the most effective tools for reducing unnecessary disputes is direct communication.

Many self-represented litigants misunderstand: • • • •

Discovery obligations; Conferral requirements; Procedural deadlines; Meet-and-confer expectations.

AI tools may amplify those misunderstandings.

Practical suggestions: • • • • •

Use plain language in conferral emails; Explain procedural expectations clearly; Confirm agreements in writing; Provide rule citations where helpful; Avoid unnecessary legal jargon.

Judges notice when counsel makes genuine efforts to resolve disputes.

Page 7

AI Usage Disclosure: This document was created entirely with AI tools.

It has not been reviewed and edited by a human.

4. DOCUMENT CONFERRAL EFFORTS CAREFULLY Because AI can facilitate rapid and repetitive filings, documenting reasonableness matters.

Maintain records of: • • • • •

Emails; Phone calls; Proposed compromises; Discovery clarifications; Scheduling efforts.

When a discovery dispute reaches the court, judges often evaluate: • • •

Which side acted reasonably; Which side escalated unnecessarily; Whether counsel attempted practical solutions.

5. CONSIDER USING AI YOURSELF Defense counsel should understand the tools opposing litigants may be using.

Appropriate AI use may help counsel: • • • • •

Identify hallucinated citations; Summarize repetitive filings; Draft responses efficiently; Organize voluminous submissions; Compare repetitive motions.

But AI-generated work product still requires attorney verification.

Several courts have emphasized that lawyers remain fully responsible for all filings submitted to the court.

As one federal judge observed, “the use of artificial intelligence must be accompanied by the application of actual intelligence.” (reddit.com)

6. SEEK SANCTIONS STRATEGICALLY Sanctions requests should be reserved for serious misconduct.

Judges often distinguish between:

Page 8

AI Usage Disclosure: This document was created entirely with AI tools.

It has not been reviewed and edited by a human.

• • •

Confused litigants; Inexperienced litigants; Deliberate bad faith.

Potential situations warranting sanctions may include: • • • • •

Repeated fabricated citations after warning; False factual representations; Abuse of motion practice; Harassing filings; Intentional misrepresentation of authority.

Potential sanction mechanisms include: • • • • •

Rule 11; 28 U.S.C. § 1927; Inherent authority; Local Rule sanctions; Filing restrictions for vexatious litigants.

That said, courts often prefer progressive case management before imposing severe sanctions on SRLs.

7. ASK FOR TARGETED RELIEF Instead of requesting sweeping sanctions immediately, consider narrower requests: • • • • • •

Requiring pre-filing conferral; Page limitations; Leave requirements for additional motions; Striking unsupported exhibits; Orders requiring citation verification; Consolidated briefing schedules.

Judges generally appreciate practical solutions.

8. USE PLAIN LANGUAGE IN YOUR OWN FILINGS Many judges view professionalism toward SRLs as an important credibility factor.

Avoid: • • •

Mocking tone; Excessive sarcasm; Hypertechnical arguments untethered to practical prejudice.

Page 9

AI Usage Disclosure: This document was created entirely with AI tools.

It has not been reviewed and edited by a human.

Instead: • • • •

Explain procedural defects clearly; Use concise language; Focus on controlling law; Emphasize practical case management.

9. DO NOT ASSUME BAD FAITH Some self-represented litigants use AI because they genuinely lack legal resources.

Others may not understand: • • • •

Hallucinations; Citation verification; Procedural standards; Discovery limits.

Judges often look favorably on counsel who: • • •

Maintain professionalism; Attempt reasonable cooperation; Avoid escalating conflict unnecessarily.

10. KNOW THE COURT’S LOCAL RULES The District of Oregon places substantial emphasis on: • • •

Conferral obligations; Discovery cooperation; Efficient motion practice.

Counsel should pay particular attention to: • • • •

LR 7-1 conferral requirements; Discovery dispute procedures; Scheduling order enforcement; Rule 16 case management.

Courts increasingly expect lawyers to manage AI-related litigation issues without requiring constant judicial intervention.

Page 10

AI Usage Disclosure: This document was created entirely with AI tools.

It has not been reviewed and edited by a human.

IV. OREGON-SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENTS A. Oregon Appellate Court Warnings Regarding AI Oregon appellate courts have publicly warned litigants that fabricated authority generated by AI may result in sanctions. The warning expressly references filings submitted by both lawyers and self-represented litigants. (ijpr.org) The warning identifies several recurring problems: • • • •

Nonexistent authority; Fabricated quotations; Unsupported propositions; False factual assertions.

This development is important because it reflects increasing judicial concern about the systemic burden created by AI-generated filings.

B. District of Oregon Trends Although the District of Oregon has not adopted a broad standing order specifically regulating AI use, judges increasingly expect attorneys to: • • • •

Verify citations; Review AI-generated content carefully; Exercise technological competence; Maintain candor toward the tribunal.

Recent Oregon federal cases involving hallucinated citations demonstrate that courts are willing to investigate AI misuse and consider sanctions where appropriate. (law360.com)

C. Oregon Ethical Obligations Oregon lawyers should remember that existing professional obligations already apply to AI use, including: • • • •

Competence; Candor to the tribunal; Reasonable investigation; Supervision of nonlawyer assistance and technology.

Page 11

AI Usage Disclosure: This document was created entirely with AI tools.

It has not been reviewed and edited by a human.

AI does not alter those duties.

V. WHAT JUDGES FIND PERSUASIVE A. Credibility Matters More Than Volume Long filings are rarely persuasive merely because they are long.

Judges consistently value: • • • • •

Accurate citations; Concise analysis; Reliable factual support; Professional tone; Practical solutions.

B. Judges Appreciate Efficient Problem-Solving Counsel who: • • • •

Narrow disputes; Offer practical solutions; Confer meaningfully; Avoid unnecessary escalation;

tend to maintain stronger credibility with the court.

C. The Court Notices Tone When dealing with SRLs, judges notice whether counsel: • • • •

Maintains professionalism; Treats litigants respectfully; Avoids personal attacks; Focuses on the merits.

A measured tone often increases persuasive force.

Page 12

AI Usage Disclosure: This document was created entirely with AI tools.

It has not been reviewed and edited by a human.

VI. PRACTICAL CHECKLIST FOR DEFENSE COUNSEL When litigating against AI-assisted self-represented litigants:

Initial Case Assessment □ Verify all cited authority □ Check quotations against original sources □ Evaluate whether allegations actually state a claim □ Consider early Rule 12 motions where appropriate □ Preserve a clear procedural record

Discovery and Motion Practice □ Confer directly and document efforts □ Use plain language communications □ Clarify discovery obligations in writing □ Narrow disputes before motion practice □ Request targeted relief when needed

AI-Specific Issues □ Identify fabricated or unsupported authority □ Distinguish mistakes from bad faith □ Consider whether sanctions are appropriate □ Use AI tools cautiously and verify outputs □ Maintain attorney oversight over all filings

Courtroom Strategy Page 13

AI Usage Disclosure: This document was created entirely with AI tools.

It has not been reviewed and edited by a human. □ Maintain professionalism □ Avoid inflammatory rhetoric □ Focus on accuracy and efficiency □ Emphasize practical prejudice □ Preserve credibility with the court

VII. CONCLUSION Artificial intelligence is permanently changing civil litigation.

For self-represented litigants, AI has lowered barriers to entry and increased access to legal information. But it has also created significant challenges for courts and litigants alike, including fabricated authority, excessive filings, and increased burdens on judicial administration.

For civil defense lawyers, the most effective response is not hostility toward AI itself. The most effective response is disciplined lawyering: • • • • • •

Verify everything; Confer meaningfully; Maintain professionalism; Use practical case-management tools; Seek sanctions judiciously; Preserve credibility.

Ultimately, judges are looking for lawyers who help the court efficiently identify the real issues in the case.

That remains true regardless of whether the opposing litigant drafted the filing personally—or with the assistance of artificial intelligence.

SELECTED AUTHORITIES AND RESOURCES Cases and Authorities Page 14

AI Usage Disclosure: This document was created entirely with AI tools.

It has not been reviewed and edited by a human.

• • • • •

Monell v. Dep’t of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

28 U.S.C. § 1927.

Oregon and Federal AI Resources • •

Oregon Court of Appeals, Notice Regarding Court Imposition of Sanctions for Submission of Fabricated Authority Produced by AI. (courts.oregon.gov) Oregon appellate court warning regarding increasing AI-generated erroneous filings. (ijpr.org)

Scholarship • • •

“The New Pro Se: Generative AI and the Surge in Federal Civil Self-Representation.” (arxiv.org) “Hallucination-Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading AI Legal Research Tools.” (arxiv.org) “Large Legal Fictions: Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Models.” (arxiv.org)

Commentary and Reporting •

Reuters reporting on AI-related sanctions and judicial responses. (reuters.com)

Page 15

THE SUPREME COURT: A MOMENTOUS TERM AND A LOOK AHEAD Friday, June 19, 2026 9:15am – 10:45am

Presented By: Thomas Dupree

Image Here

OADC Conference

June 19, 2026 Tom Dupree

October Term 2025

Tariffs

IMMIGRATION

RULE OF LAW

Independent agencies

SEPARATION OF POWERS

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

VOTING RIGHTS

APPELLATE UPDATE

Friday, June 19, 2026 11:00am – 12:00pm

Presented By: Jonathan Henderson Judge Steven Powers Julie Smith

2026 OADC Annual Conference Appellate Update

Changes to oral arguments •

Chief Judge Order 24-01 & self-represented parties •

Adopted new rules to allow self-represented parties to opt into oral arguments beginning in April 2024 and later made permanent

Court of Appeals Oral Argument Procedures and Orders of Interest

•

From in-person to fully remote to hybrid and back again •

Over five years ago, pivoted to fully remote arguments

•

Now, with few exceptions, parties may appear for argument in the manner that best meets their needs, i.e., in-person arguments, remote

arguments, and hybrid arguments where some appear remotely and others in-person •

Streamed online and then stored on the court’s website

Court of Appeals Orders of Interest •

Chief Judge message in April 22, 2026, media release

•

Database includes substantive and procedural orders on attorney fee petitions, orders on motions for stays pending appeal, and orders granting motions for summary resolution of appeals •

https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p17027coll17

Generative AI Sanction Cases

Ringo v. Colquhoun Design Studio, LLC, 345 Or App 301 (2025) (first GenAI sanction case and describing negative impact GenAI is having on the court system and the rule of law).

Powell v. Employment Dept, 347 Or App 55 (2026) (imposing $500 sanction on pro se party where (1) party was on notice of the potential for research and writing process to produce fabricated authority but did not inform the court; and (2) reliance on fabricated authority wasted judicial resources).

Doiban v. OLCC, 347 Or App 742 (2026) (capping GenAI sanction at $10k).

Williams v. Honl, 348 Or App 505 (2026) (awarding atty fees for GenAI fabrications and includes commentary on what it means to practice law).

Marion County PJO 26-14 (May 26, 2026) •

New and Proposed Court Rules on Generative AI

Use of GenAI does not alter counsel’s existing obligations under ORCP 17 and duties to ensure filings are accurate, supported by evidence, legally wellfounded, and not submitted for an improper purpose

•

Filings that use any GenAI tool to draft, summarize, or generate legal analysis or citations must include the following statement at the end of the document: “Portions of this filing were prepared using an artificial intelligence tool. All citations, quotations, and legal assertions have been verified by the undersigned in

accordance with ORCP 17.”

•

Court may strike filing containing fabricated authority or significant inaccuracies and may impose sanctions under ORCP 17 D

Oregon Rules of Appellate Procedure (ORAP) (proposed rules for Jan 1, 2027 – comments due July 17, 2026)

New and Proposed Court Rules on Generative AI

•

ORAP 1.40(5) – “In addition to the general certifications in ORCP 17 C, a person signing a document as required by ORCP 17 that is filed in an appellate court is certifying that the document does not contain any fabricated authority.”

•

ORAP 13.25(3) – appellate court may impose sanctions against person or party who has made a false certification under ORAP 1.40(5) •

Absent good cause, minimum of $500 each time a fabricated authority is referenced in the stricken document

•

Sanctions may include award of reasonable attorney fees incurred as a result of false certification

Wrongful Death Limit on Noneconomic Damages

Estate of Ritchie v. Helbig, 347 Or App 37, rev den, ___ Or ___ (2026) (upheld $500,000 limit on $2 million noneconomic damages award).

Anti-SLAPP Cases

Mouktabis v. Faber, 349 Or App 93 (2026) (statements made during settlement negotiations relating to a pending case are subject to anti-SLAPP protections; also addresses new vexatious litigant rule).

Yarn v. Pinehurst Mgmt., 348 Or App 391 (2026) (notice of lis pendens recorded while an action is pending is subject to anti-SLAPP protections).

Employer Liability Law, Specialty Contractor & Vicarious Liability Cases

Tozer v. Katerra Constr. LLC, 344 Or App 204 (2025), rev den, 375 Or 110 (2026) (affirming summary judgment in favor of owner of construction project, general contractor, and subcontractor on negligence, vicarious liability, and ELL claims arising from accident occurring during commute to construction site).

Prince v. Joe Cronin Logging, LLC, 342 Or App 288 (2025) (affirming summary judgment based on specialty contractor doctrine and ruling that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under the ELL).

Bock v. Vigor Works LLC, 343 Or App 514 (2025), rev allowed, 375 Or 109 (2026) (reversing summary judgment on ELL claim against commercial lessee who hired specialty contractor; affirming summary judgment on negligence claim).

Gazitt v. City of Portland, 341 Or App 407 (2025) (discretionary immunity).

Immunity Cases

Freeby v. Hoodoo Ski Bowl Developers, Inc., 344 Or App 216 (2025), rev den, 375 Or 155 (2026) (recreational use immunity/ski liability statutes).

Estate of Mesch v. Unity Ctr. for Behavioral Health, 349 Or App 463 (2026) (mental health assessment immunity; remedy clause).

Sheppard v. Progressive Classic Ins. Co., 375 Or 262 (2026) (interpreting the “furnished for regular use” exclusion in the model UIM policy under ORS 742.504(4)(b)).

UM/UIM Cases

Rogers v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Oregon, 349 Or App 691 (2026) (allowing insureds to stack UIM coverage from separate policies issued by same insurer, finding “other insurance” exclusion in policy incompatible with the statutory model UIM policy).

Stone v. Witt, 374 Or 524 (2025) (medical malpractice liability for foreseeable harm to third parties).

Medical Liability

Eldred v. Oregon Anesthesiology Grp., P. C., 347 Or App 169 (2026) (economic loss doctrine barred claims arising from data breach).

Tureck v. Taksali, 344 Or App 50 (2025), rev allowed, 375 Or 109 (2026) (medical malpractice statute of limitations discovery rule).

More Cases Loper v. Brakel, 343 Or App 445 (2025), rev allowed, 374 Or 698 (2026) (sudden medical emergency defense).

Higgs v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Inc., 349 Or App 232 (2026) (fraud/tobacco liability).

Q&A

BAD FAITH/MOODY

Friday, June 19, 2026 12:00pm – 1:00pm

Presented By: Bryce Adams

Presentation will be provided by request.

Please email info@oadc.com

NUCLEAR VERDICTS

Saturday, June 20, 2026 8:30am – 10:30am

Presented By: Sitar Bhatt

NUCLEAR VERDICTS®: BREAK THE PATTERN WITH THE APEX Sitar Bhatt June 20, 2026

Scottsdale & Seattle Branch Office Managing Partner

DEFINING THE PROBLEM

FIRST THINGS FIRST… WHO ARE WE?!

We are the national insurance defense trial firm determined to STOP Nuclear Verdicts®

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? • Nuclear Verdicts® are wreaking global havoc!  Awards no longer anchored to economic loss or proportional responsibility  Drive social inflation  Create an economic burden borne by EVERYONE!

WHAT IS A NUCLEAR VERDICT®?

• Traditional definition → “anything over $10M”, but…  Misses the mark!

• Now…  Any verdict that is just plain out of whack!  Focus is really on disproportionality

REMEMBER WHEN THIS WAS NEWS? • And now THIS is the news!

• What changed?

JUST HOW BAD IS IT?

• From 2023 to 2025...

PRIMARY DAMAGES OF NUCLEAR VERDICTS® AMOUNTS • Survey says…  Vastly disproportionate to measurable economic loss

WHAT ABOUT NUCLEAR SETTLEMENTS? • Settlement values become fear-based, not evidence-based • Fear of juries embolden plaintiffs’ settlement demands without proving their case • Anticipated runaway verdicts anchor settlement demands far above economic exposure

HAS THE PLAINTIFF’S BAR STAYED STAGNANT?

NO!

• What 2 major changes over the past 15 years?  Go for  Ask for a

ANGER

BIG NUMBER

WHAT ABOUT THE DEFENSE?

PRIMARY CAUSES OF NUCLEAR VERDICTS®

MACRO-LEVEL CAUSES OF NUCLEAR VERDICTS®?

Tort reform rollbacks Third-party litigation funding Attorney advertising Judges

MICRO-LEVEL CAUSES OF NUCLEAR VERDICTS® •• Where do matters?

Nuclear Verdicts® happen?

Why this

WE HAVE CONTROL!

PSYCHOLOGICAL REASONS FOR JUROR ANGER • Anger-It is the #1 cause of Nuclear Verdicts® • Jurors punish defendants perceived as…

Dishonest

Evasive

Indifferent

• Corporate Identity Effect

PSYCHOLOGY OF ANGER

THINK OF A TIME YOU WERE REALLY ANGRY • What did it feel like in your body?

• What were you thinking?

• What did you want to do?

HOW ELSE WOULD YOU DESCRIBE “ANGER”?

Aggravation

Irritation

Hostility

Bitterness

Agitation

Vengefulness

Indignation

Frustration

Annoyance

Outrage

LINEHAN’S MODEL OF EMOTIONS MODEL OF EMOTIONS

Prompting Event

Cognitive Thoughts

Vulnerability Factors

Physiological Body sensations

Behaviors Action Urges Actions

Secondary Emotion

Primary Emotion Name

Linehan, 1993; 2015 Dr. Jennifer Staples, Nuclear Verdicts® Defense Institute, 2023

WHAT IS A TRIGGERING EVENT? • Anyone care to share?

• Important goal being stopped • You or someone you love being attacked/threatened/treated unfairly • Losing power/status Linehan, 1993; 2015. Dr. Jennifer Staples, Nuclear Verdicts® Defense Institute, 2023

Malcolm in the Middle, 2000 - 2006

COMPONENTS OF ANGER: PHYSIOLOGICAL AND COGNITIVE • Physiological = the body • Cognitive = the mind • Physiological + cognitive = logic & reason disappear

PHYSIOLOGICAL COMPONENTS OF ANGER • “Fight-or-flight” - sympathetic nervous system • Blood pressure and heart rate increase • Breathing quickens • Muscles tense • Pupils dilate • Flushing/sweating • Digestion slows

COGNITIVE COMPONENTS OF ANGER

Believing you/others have been treated unfairly Blaming Believing important goals are being blocked or stopped Believing things “should” be different than they are Rigid thinking Judging the situation as wrong Ruminating about the event that set off the anger in the first place

Dr. Jennifer Staples, Nuclear Verdicts® Defense Institute, 2023, Linehan, 1993; 2015

MODEL OF EMOTIONS MODEL OF EMOTIONS

Prompting Event

Cognitive Thoughts

Physiological Body sensations

Behaviors Action Urges Actions Linehan, 1993; 2015 Dr. Jennifer Staples, Nuclear Verdicts® Defense Institute, 2023

BEHAVIORAL COMPONENTS OF ANGER Wanting to (or actually) hitting something or someone

Wanting to (or actually) throwing things

Raising voice/ yelling/ screaming

Storming out

Swearing/using obscenities

Verbal/physical aggression

VULNERABILITY FACTORS – WHAT MAKES US MORE PRONE TO ANGER? MODEL OF E M OT I O N S

Prompting Event

Cognitive Thoughts

Vulnerability Factors

Physiological Body sensations

Behaviors Action Urges Actions Linehan, 1993; 2015 Dr. Jennifer Staples, Nuclear Verdicts® Defense Institute, 2023

THIS IS HOW THESE MAY LOOK! • • • • • • •

Hunger (hanger!)

Thirst Being tired/not getting enough sleep Being sick Getting fired/other major disruptive life event Not taking medications Societal trend/experiences?

PRIMARY vs. SECONDARY EMOTIONS MODEL OF EMOTIONS

Prompting Event

Cognitive Thoughts

Vulnerability Factors

Physiological Body sensations

Behaviors Action Urges Actions

Secondary Emotion

Primary Emotion Name

Linehan, 1993; 2015 Dr. Jennifer Staples, Nuclear Verdicts® Defense Institute, 2023

EXAMPLE – FEAR MODEL OF EMOTIONS

Running late Starving “Oh no!”

“OMG!”

Anger feels more powerful than fear Someone cuts you off on freeway

Tension HR increase Breathing speeds up

Slam on brakes Honk horn Exclaim

Anger

Fear

Linehan, 1993; 2015 Dr. Jennifer Staples, Nuclear Verdicts® Defense Institute, 2023

WHY DO WE CHOOSE ANGER? Anger is: “…a learned means “…[an] automatic human response… of neutralizing [to]… protect us anxiety.” from harm.”

“...a signal we may need to do something.”

“…a feeling of power that can compensate for underlying feelings of anxiety.”

Anger can restore a feeling of CONTROL

Source: Brigham Young University, Counseling and Psychological Services

WHAT OTHER EMOTIONS CAN PROMPT ANGER?

Fear

Disgust

Shame/ Sadness embarrassment

Envy/ jealousy

A QUICK NOTE ABOUT BIOPHILIA • Bio… what?

• Theory that humans innately seek connection and affiliation with other living things • Also studied extensively as “belonging” • Us vs. them – mentality that allows for connection/affiliation and reclaiming of POWER • Consider impact on anger and decision making

PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WANTS JURORS TO KNOW PLAINTIFF’S STORY • Remember biophilia?!

• Think they have an easier job?

WHAT HAPPENS TO DECISION MAKING WHEN ANGRY?

• Impulsive • Reactive

• Ruled by emotion • Irrational

Seinfeld, 1989-1998

• So… the opposite of everything you want in the deliberation room!

EMOTION MIND vs. REASONABLE MIND Reasonable Mind Reasonable Mind Reasonable Mind

Emotion Mind Emotion Mind Emotion Mind

Wise •Mind • Ruled by facts Reactive • Task-focused • Impulsive • The middle path • Ignores emotions • Mood-dependent • Balance • “Robotic mode” • Honor truth in both What does anger look like in • Being effective What happens•toValues-consistent anger in Emotion Mind?

Reasonable Mind?

HOW DO WE MOVE OUR JURORS INTO WISE MIND?!

DO YOU VALIDATE?

Validation = the simplest way to defuse anger!

It’s not about the nail – Jason Hadley Short Films, 2014

IT IS NOT ABOUT THE NAIL! • Validation is NOT Agreeing Joining in on the anger Egging them on Problem solving Liking

IT IS ABOUT EMPATHY! • Or, as Bob says, “Be a good human!”

• What validation IS: Acknowledging a person’s experience is real

Acknowledging their emotions surrounding that experience are understandable

Seeing the situation from their perspective

Finding the kernel of truth, even when you disagree

Dr. Jennifer Staples, Nuclear Verdicts® Defense Institute, 2023

IMPACT OF VALIDATION • What happens when an angry person feels validated?  They move from Emotion Mind into Wise Mind!  Wise mind: Acknowledges emotions without being ruled by them

Clarity

Considers evidential sources of information external to emotional response

Weighs information

Source: Manhattan Center for Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, “What Exactly is Wise Mind?”, Dr. Paul Greene, June 28, 2023

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN AN ANGRY PERSON FEELS VALIDATED? Kind of sounds like a perfect juror, right?

PLAINTIFF’S LAWYERS LEVERAGE PSYCHOLOGY

WE CAN TOO!

IN ORDER TO DEFUSE ANGER…

…We must understand it!

MEET THE APEX

HOW CAN WE AVOID NUCLEAR VERDICTS®?

•

Trial-tested, data-backed blueprint for defense to stop Nuclear Verdicts®

DEFUSES ANGER

•

Proven strategies plaintiffs’ bar hopes you will not use

•

Why?

WHY THE APEX? • 100 Nuclear Verdicts® studied • We have read hundreds of thousands of trial transcript pages • Over 65 data points analyzed There are CLEAR PATTERNS!

WHAT IS NOT PRESENT IN ANY NUCLEAR VERDICTS®?

• No Nuclear Verdict® used The Apex • Not a single Nuclear Verdict® where the defense used the Core Four!

DOES THE DEFENSE USE THE CORE FOUR?

NO!

Where the defense failed to use any of the Core Four, verdicts averaged 148.6% of plaintiff’s ask!

IS THE APEX JUST FOR TRIAL? • Use at every stage…

NO!

Prelitigation Litigation Trial

• Put it into practice…

Early AND

Often

Seinfeld, 1989-1998

TIME TO START WINNING WITH THE APEX!

PERSONALIZE THE DEFENDANT

WHAT IS THE CORPORATE IDENTITY EFFECT? Corporate defendants are viewed as MORE LIABLE and MORE OWING OF HIGHER DAMAGES than individual defendants!

The Good Place, 2016-2020

BUT DOES THE DEFENSE PERSONALIZE THE DEFENDANT?

NO!

PLAINTIFFS LOVE IT WHEN WE FAIL TO PERSONALIZE! • When plaintiffs’ counsel attacks the defense for failing to personalize… it is bad!

• Verdicts were higher!

• When plaintiff attacks/dehumanizes defense, verdicts jump to 128% of plaintiff’s ask!

IMPACT OF PERSONALIZING

ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY

DOES DEFENSE ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY? • Defense accepted responsibility only 15% of the time in Nuclear Verdicts®!

NO! Spiderman: Across the Spider-Verse, 2023

WHY SHOULD THE DEFENSE ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY? Defuses juror anger Shows defense is reasonable Shifts focus to comparative fault Easiest way to defuse anger is by validating it!

Responsibility does not mean liability!

FAILING TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY DRIVES DAMAGES UP! • Average verdicts were MUCH HIGHER when defense failed to accept responsibility!

GIVE A NUMBER

WHY SHOULD THE DEFENSE GIVE A NUMBER?

CAN YOU GIVE A NUMBER AND GET A DEFENSE VERDICT? • But… give it…

Early

Often

Must never go up, must be reasonable

Giving a number actually LOWERS damages Recency/ Primacy Credibility Desensitization Source: Campbell, J., Chao, B., Robertson, C.,INCREASE & Yokum, Chances of defense verdict D. (2016). Countering the Plaintiff’s Anchor: Jury Simulations to Evaluate Damages Arguments

HOW DOES GIVING A NUMBER IMPACT VERDICTS ?

ARGUE PAIN AND SUFFERING

WHAT IS THE BIGGEST DAMAGES COMPONENT OF NUCLEAR VERDICTS®?

PAIN AND SUFFERING! Parks and Recreation, 2009-2015

HOW SHOULD THE DEFENSE ARGUE PAIN AND SUFFERING? • Two elements:  Impact of accident/incident on plaintiff’s life  Impact of money on plaintiff’s life

ARGUING PAIN AND SUFFERING DRIVES DOWN DAMAGES! • Saying anything helps!

TIME TO LEVEL UP!

ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS AT THE BEGINNING OF EVERY CASE… • What is going to get a jury angry?

• How will we defuse that anger?

• What is our human story?

• For what will we accept responsibility?

• What is our number, and how will we give it?

• How will we argue pain and suffering?

HOW TO EMPOWER DEFENSE TO STOP NUCLEAR VERDICTS®?!

• USE OUR CORE FOUR!  ALL OF THEM! ALL THE TIME!  Do not wait – start strategic discussions early

ANY QUESTIONS

Feedback

Sitar Bhatt Scottsdale & Seattle Branch Office Managing Partner sbhatt@tysonmendes.com

THE PROS, CONS, AND ETHICAL PITFALLS OF AI Saturday, June 20, 2026 11:00am – 12:00pm

Presented By: Scott Kveton Sarah Tuthill-Kveton

5/29/26, 12:22 PM

AI is flooding the courts with more cases, more filings, and more fake citations - Fast Company

[Photo: panandrii/Adobe Stock]

BY C H R I S S TO K E L-WA L K E R

L I S T E N TO T H I S A RT I C L E

More info

0:00/4:34

AI use is becoming pervasive across the legal system, with both experienced staff and absolute novices turning to ChatGPT and other tools to try to make the most persuasive case possible when they arrive in court, even if some of those claims turn out to be literally too good to be true.

Last month, top law firm Sullivan & Cromwell was forced to apologize for filing fictitious case names and fabricated quotes in a legal document submitted in a case, as well as citing incorrect statutes in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. “We deeply regret this occurred,” the firm wrote in an apologetic letter to the judge in a case about an alleged scam operation run out of Cambodia, which the defendant denies.

https://www.fastcompany.com/91539168/ai-is-flooding-the-courts-with-more-cases-more-filings-and-more-fake-citations

2/12

5/29/26, 12:22 PM

AI is flooding the courts with more cases, more filings, and more fake citations - Fast Company

It’s far from the only legal hitch blamed on AI. A 2025 High Court case in the U.K. saw a barrister submit 18 fictitious case-law citations out of 45 total. In another 2025 disciplinary case, a barrister used AI to prepare for a hearing and attempted to mask fabricated citations, while the widely publicized 2023 Mata v. Avianca case was among the first major examples of an attorney using ChatGPT to draft a legal filing that relied on entirely nonexistent judicial precedents.

The impact of AI on the legal system is also starting to come into focus through new research examining the underlying numbers. A recent study suggests that U.S. federal courts are beginning to see significant increases in their caseloads.

“The pro se share of all civil cases has been 11% for quite some time,” says Anand Shah, a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who led the research. “And then in the post-AI world, we see it jumping all the way up to something like 18%.”

At the same time, Shah and his co-author, Joshua Levy of the University of Southern California, analyzed the proportion of AI-generated text in complaints using a random sample of 1,600 filings drawn from an eightyear period. They found that AI-generated text rose from “basically 0%” before generative AI to about 18% in early 2026. “We were just floored,” says Shah.

By digging deeper into the filings themselves, Shah and Levy found that the increase was concentrated in simpler, more templatable case types, rather than highly technical areas like patents or securities law. Shah believes that may suggest AI is helping people pursue cases they previously would not have attempted, because it has become far easier to

https://www.fastcompany.com/91539168/ai-is-flooding-the-courts-with-more-cases-more-filings-and-more-fake-citations

3/12

5/29/26, 12:22 PM

AI is flooding the courts with more cases, more filings, and more fake citations - Fast Company

generate the framework of a legal argument and the accompanying documents with minimal effort.

While anecdotal evidence suggests the AI influx is beginning to strain the legal system, Shah says the broader disruption has not yet fully materialized in the data. “Cases are not resolving any faster or slower, which itself is a little surprising,” he says. But he notes that the back-andforth between opposing parties is increasing, dramatically expanding the number of filings judges must review. That number is up roughly 158%, Shah says.

Just because judges are managing to work through their expanded workloads, at least for now, doesn’t mean the system can absorb the pressure indefinitely, Shah argues. Society, he says, needs to start setting boundaries around AI in the courts before the strain becomes severe enough to slow the legal system down.

The adoption of AI isn’t entirely negative, according to Will Pearce of Orbital, a company that provides legal AI tools to the real estate sector.

“There’s a complete paradigm shift, not only in legal, but just generally in terms of how society accesses and interprets information,” he says.

Pearce claims that AI has been “incredibly empowering,” opening up a legal system once dominated by dense legalese and arcane processes to people who can now use AI tools to parse documents and figure out possible next steps.

But the risks remain significant. Shah says the lower courts are already under intense strain, and warns that the pressure is likely to grow quickly as AI models improve and more people realize they can use them to generate legal filings. “I don’t think we have a lot of time,” he says. https://www.fastcompany.com/91539168/ai-is-flooding-the-courts-with-more-cases-more-filings-and-more-fake-citations

4/12

5/29/26, 12:22 PM

AI is flooding the courts with more cases, more filings, and more fake citations - Fast Company

That means more work is needed to establish rules and norms governing how and when AI should be used in the legal system. “We very much should not YOLO this transition of letting AI courts pop up willy-nilly and try a lot of stuff,” Shah warns.

The final extended deadline for Fast Company's Brands That Matter Awards is this Friday, May 29, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply today.

A weekly newsletter that makes sense of the rapidly evolving world of generative AI. Email * SIGN UP This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Privacy Policy

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Chris Stokel-Walker is a contributing writer at Fast Company who focuses on the tech sector and its impact on our daily lives—online and offline. He has explored how the WordPress drama has implications for the wider web, how AI web crawlers are pushing sites offline, as well as stories about ordinary people doing incredible things, such as the German teen who set up a MySpace clone with more than a million users. More

E X P LO R E TO P I C S ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

L AW FIRMS

https://www.fastcompany.com/91539168/ai-is-flooding-the-courts-with-more-cases-more-filings-and-more-fake-citations

5/12