On March 20, 2026, the Nebraska Supreme Court unanimously referred Omaha attorney Greg Lake to the Counsel for Discipline after his appellate brief in a divorce case contained 57 defective citations out of 63 total references. The ruling in Kingston v. Kingston (No. S-25-050) marks the first time a Nebraska court has formally addressed AI-generated fabrications in legal filings, and it carries direct consequences for every family law practitioner in the state.
| Key Facts | Details |
|---|---|
| What happened | Nebraska Supreme Court struck an appellate brief and referred attorney Greg Lake to the Counsel for Discipline |
| When | March 20, 2026 |
| Case | Kingston v. Kingston, No. S-25-050 (Neb. 2026) |
| Citation defects | 57 of 63 references contained errors, including 4 completely fabricated cases and 20 hallucinated references |
| Key rule | Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 1.1 (Competence), 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal) |
| Impact | First Nebraska ruling on AI-generated legal filings; court struck brief, dismissed appeal, and sided with the mother on underlying divorce |
The Nebraska Supreme Court Now Treats AI Hallucinations as a Candor Violation
The Kingston opinion makes clear that filing unverified AI-generated content is not a minor procedural hiccup in Nebraska. It is a potential violation of Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 3.3, which requires candor toward the tribunal. The court identified 57 defective citations in Lake's 63-reference brief, a 90% error rate that the justices called a "serious dereliction" of duty, according to the Lincoln Journal Star.
Of those 57 defective references, 20 were classified as "hallucinations" containing fictitious details drawn from real Nebraska cases, and 4 were entirely fabricated, including a nonexistent 2019 case called "Kennedy v. Kennedy" that Lake cited for a custody argument. The remaining defects involved incorrect case numbers, misquoted holdings, and fictitious quotations from actual Nebraska statutes, as reported by Nebraska Public Media.
Justice John Freudenberg, writing for a unanimous court, noted that every false citation "would have been immediately apparent through basic legal research using free resources like Nebraska state statutes or the Nebraska Appellate Courts Online Library." The court described the filing as "filled with fictitious cases and fictitious quotations from statutes," per WOWT.
How Nebraska Law Handles Attorney Misconduct in Filings
Nebraska attorneys are bound by several professional conduct rules that Kingston v. Kingston brings into sharp focus. Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 1.1 requires competent representation, which includes the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 3.3 prohibits making false statements of fact or law to a tribunal. Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 3.1 requires that claims and contentions have a basis in law and fact.
The Kingston court explicitly stated that regardless of whether AI generated the errors, "the obligations of candor, competence, diligence, and making good faith arguments remain the same." Nebraska does not currently have a standalone AI disclosure rule like some jurisdictions have adopted. Instead, the court applied existing professional conduct standards to AI-assisted work, establishing that the same verification duties apply whether an attorney uses Westlaw, a law clerk, or ChatGPT.
Lake attempted to file a corrected brief within 48 hours of the original submission, but the court rejected the replacement. Lake told the court during oral arguments in February 2026 that the errors resulted from "sloppy" copying and pasting and repeatedly denied using AI. The court was unconvinced, noting the pattern of errors was consistent with generative AI hallucinations, according to the Lincoln Journal Star.
The consequences were severe. The court struck Lake's entire brief, effectively dismissed his client's appeal, and referred Lake to the Counsel for Discipline for investigation into potential violations of the Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. 7-111, disciplinary actions in Nebraska can range from a private reprimand to suspension or disbarment.
The Underlying Divorce Ruling Went Against Lake's Client
Beyond the AI citation issue, the Kingston court ruled on the substantive divorce matters. The case involved a long-running dispute over child custody and property division that had been ongoing since 2013 and went to trial in 2025. The court affirmed the lower court's custody decree in favor of the mother and left the door open for her to recover attorney fees under Neb. Rev. Stat. 42-351, which allows courts to award reasonable attorney fees in dissolution proceedings.
The court addressed the father's argument that restricted stock units (RSUs) should be excluded from child support calculations. The Nebraska Supreme Court held that post-divorce RSU sales constituted a material change in circumstances under Neb. Rev. Stat. 42-364, affirming the district court's income calculation and retroactivity determination.
This outcome underscores a practical reality: filing a defective brief does not just risk discipline. It can cost your client the case. Lake's client lost his appeal on custody, property division, and support, and now faces potential liability for the opposing party's attorney fees.
Practical Takeaways for Nebraska Divorce Cases
-
Verify every citation independently before filing any document in a Nebraska court. The Kingston court emphasized that free resources like the Nebraska Appellate Courts Online Library make verification straightforward. A 90% error rate in a brief is indefensible regardless of the source.
-
Understand that Nebraska applies existing professional conduct rules to AI-assisted legal work. There is no separate AI standard. Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 1.1 (competence) and Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 3.3 (candor) apply whether you drafted the brief yourself, delegated it to an associate, or used a generative AI tool.
-
If you are a party in a Nebraska divorce and suspect your attorney is using AI without proper verification, you have the right to raise concerns. The Nebraska State Bar Association accepts complaints regarding attorney conduct, and the Kingston ruling provides clear precedent that unverified AI use can constitute misconduct.
-
Courts can and will strike entire briefs that contain fabricated citations. In Kingston, the father's appeal was effectively lost because his attorney's brief was stricken. If you are involved in a custody or support dispute, ask your attorney directly how they verify their legal research.
-
The Kingston decision signals that Nebraska courts will likely adopt formal AI disclosure requirements in future rule amendments. The court described this as "a novel issue for Nebraska courts" and emphasized that AI "must be used with caution and humility." Attorneys should proactively document their research methods now.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a Nebraska attorney be disbarred for using AI in court filings?
Using AI alone is not grounds for disbarment in Nebraska. The Kingston court stated that AI "can be a benefit to the legal profession" when used responsibly. The disciplinary referral in Kingston v. Kingston (No. S-25-050) arose from filing 57 defective citations without verification, violating Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal), not from using AI itself.
What happened to the father's custody case in Kingston v. Kingston?
The father lost his appeal entirely. The Nebraska Supreme Court struck his attorney's brief due to the fabricated citations and affirmed the district court's custody decree in favor of the mother. The court also left open the possibility for the mother to recover her attorney fees under Neb. Rev. Stat. 42-351, which authorizes fee awards in dissolution proceedings.
Does Nebraska require attorneys to disclose AI use in court filings?
Nebraska does not currently have a mandatory AI disclosure rule as of March 2026. However, the Kingston opinion applied existing rules, specifically Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 1.1 (competence) and 3.3 (candor), to AI-assisted work. The court's language suggests formal AI-specific rules may follow, as it called this "a novel issue for Nebraska courts."
How can I tell if my divorce attorney is using AI without verifying citations?
Look for warning signs: citations to cases that do not appear in free databases like the Nebraska Appellate Courts Online Library, quotations that sound generic rather than case-specific, and case names that return no results on Google Scholar. In Kingston v. Kingston, 4 of the fabricated cases were entirely nonexistent, including a fictitious "Kennedy v. Kennedy (2019)" that any basic search would have flagged.
What discipline could Greg Lake face from the Nebraska Counsel for Discipline?
Under Neb. Rev. Stat. 7-111, Nebraska disciplinary sanctions range from private reprimand to public censure, suspension, or disbarment. The Counsel for Discipline will investigate whether Lake violated his duty of candor and competence. Outcomes in similar AI citation cases nationally have ranged from monetary sanctions of $5,000 to $10,000 to license suspensions, though each case depends on the attorney's disciplinary history and cooperation.
This article discusses recent news and provides general legal commentary. It does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique. Consult a qualified family law attorney for advice specific to your situation.