The Nebraska Supreme Court unanimously referred Omaha divorce attorney W. Gregory Lake to the Counsel for Discipline on March 20, 2026, after his appellate brief in Prososki v. Regan (No. S-25-0295) contained 57 defective citations out of 63 total, including 20 AI "hallucinations" and three entirely fabricated cases. Nebraska attorneys now face the clearest warning yet: unverified AI-generated filings will trigger discipline referrals.
Key Facts
| Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| What happened | Nebraska Supreme Court struck an appellate brief and referred attorney for discipline |
| Case | Prososki v. Regan, No. S-25-0295 (Neb. 2026) |
| When | March 20, 2026 (oral arguments February 3, 2026) |
| Attorney referred | W. Gregory Lake, Plains Legal Group, Omaha |
| Defective citations | 57 out of 63 total citations (90.5%) |
| AI hallucinations | 20 fictitious citations, including 3 completely fabricated cases |
| Key rules violated | Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. § 3-503.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal) |
| Impact | Brief struck, discipline referral, underlying divorce decree affirmed against Lake's client |
The Oral Arguments Were Over in 37 Seconds
The problems with Lake's brief were so severe that the Nebraska Supreme Court justices interrupted oral arguments just 37 seconds in. Chief Justice Jeff Funke confronted Lake directly about the defective citations, according to WOWT. A justice asked the question every attorney in that courtroom already knew was coming: "The elephant in the room is whether or not you used artificial intelligence. Did you?"
Lake denied using AI. His explanation: he was on his 10th wedding anniversary vacation when his laptop suffered a "catastrophic screen crack," leaving him without a computer for five days. He called the brief "a draft" and said the citations were "sloppy" due to "copying and pasting" without verification. The court found none of these explanations credible.
The fictitious cases Lake cited included Kennedy v. Kennedy (2019), Miller v. Miller, State on behalf of Ricardo P. v. Christina R., and State v. Stricklin. None of these cases exist. The brief also contained fictitious quotations attributed to real Nebraska cases and incorrect citations to Nebraska statutes and Supreme Court rules.
Nebraska Ethics Rules Already Cover AI Use
This ruling did not require any new rules. The Nebraska Supreme Court made clear that existing professional conduct rules already impose a duty to verify every citation in a court filing, regardless of how the brief was drafted. The court wrote: "Whether using AI or not, the obligations of candor, competency, diligence, and making good faith arguments remain the same."
Three specific Nebraska rules apply directly to this situation:
-
Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. § 3-501.1 (Competence) requires attorneys to provide "the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, preparation and judgment reasonably necessary for the representation." The comment to this rule specifically states that lawyers "should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology."
-
Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. § 3-503.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal) prohibits attorneys from knowingly making false statements of fact or law to a court. Filing a brief containing 20 fabricated citations is exactly the kind of conduct this rule was designed to prevent.
-
Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. § 3-501.3 (Diligence) requires attorneys to act with "reasonable diligence and promptness." Submitting a self-described "draft" as a final appellate brief falls short of this standard.
The Nebraska Attorney General's office filed an amicus brief through Deputy Solicitor General Zachary B. Pohlman, who noted that the federal District of Nebraska already requires AI disclosure under NECivR 7.0.1, effective since December 1, 2024. That federal rule requires a certificate stating either that no generative AI was used, or that a human verified all AI-generated text including citations. Pohlman encouraged the state courts to adopt similar requirements while emphasizing that "ethical AI innovation in the law should be fostered, not chilled."
What This Means for Nebraska Divorce Cases
The real-world consequences of this case extend beyond attorney discipline. Lake's client, Jason Regan, lost his appeal in a divorce case that had been litigated since 2013. The court struck Lake's entire appellate brief as a sanction, affirmed the trial court's dissolution decree in favor of Jennifer Prososki, and left open the possibility that Prososki could recover her attorney fees.
That is the part of this story that should concern every Nebraska family law litigant. When an attorney submits a defective brief, the client pays the price. Regan raised nine issues on appeal, including challenges to parenting time reduction, income imputation, legal custody designation, and property division. None of those issues received meaningful appellate review because the vehicle for raising them was struck from the record.
The court did note, pointedly, that "AI, like other technological tools, can be a benefit to the legal community, but it must be used with caution and humility." This signals that Nebraska courts are not anti-AI. They are anti-negligence.
Practical Takeaways for Nebraska Attorneys and Litigants
-
Verify every citation before filing. The Prososki court made no distinction between AI-generated errors and human carelessness. A 90.5% defect rate (57 of 63 citations) is indefensible under any explanation. Every Nebraska attorney should Shepardize or KeyCite every case before submission.
-
Expect state-level AI disclosure rules soon. The Attorney General's amicus brief explicitly encouraged the Nebraska Supreme Court to adopt rules similar to the federal NECivR 7.0.1. Nebraska practitioners should prepare for mandatory AI use certifications in state court filings.
-
Clients should ask their attorneys about AI use policies. If your attorney is using AI tools to draft briefs, that is not inherently problematic. The question is whether they have a verification process. Ask about it the same way you would ask about any other aspect of how your case is being handled.
-
Document everything if you suspect opposing counsel filed AI-generated content. The mother's attorney in Prososki filed a motion to strike the brief after identifying the fabricated citations. That motion led directly to the discipline referral. If citations in an opposing brief look unfamiliar, verify them.
-
This case joins a growing national database. According to researcher Damien Charlotin, there are now 958 documented instances globally of AI hallucinations in court filings. Nebraska is not an outlier. This is a systemic issue across every jurisdiction.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can Nebraska attorneys use AI to draft legal documents?
Yes, Nebraska attorneys can use AI tools for legal drafting. The Nebraska Supreme Court stated in Prososki v. Regan (2026) that "AI, like other technological tools, can be a benefit to the legal community." However, Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. § 3-501.1 requires attorneys to verify all AI-generated content, including every citation, before filing.
What happened to the attorney who filed the AI-generated brief in Nebraska?
W. Gregory Lake of Plains Legal Group in Omaha was referred to the Nebraska Counsel for Discipline on March 20, 2026, after 57 of 63 citations in his appellate brief were defective, including 20 AI hallucinations and 3 fabricated cases. His brief was struck and his client's appeal in Prososki v. Regan (No. S-25-0295) was effectively lost.
Does Nebraska require attorneys to disclose AI use in court filings?
Nebraska state courts do not yet require AI disclosure, but the federal District of Nebraska adopted NECivR 7.0.1 on December 1, 2024, requiring certification of AI use or non-use. The Nebraska Attorney General's office has encouraged the state Supreme Court to adopt a similar rule following Prososki v. Regan.
What should I do if I think my opponent's attorney used AI to fabricate citations?
File a motion to strike the brief immediately. In Prososki v. Regan (2026), the opposing attorney's motion to strike led to the Nebraska Supreme Court striking the entire brief and referring the filing attorney for discipline. Verify suspicious citations through Westlaw, LexisNexis, or the Nebraska Judicial Branch website before filing your motion.
How does AI misconduct in a divorce case affect the outcome for the client?
The client bears the consequences directly. In Prososki v. Regan, Jason Regan's nine appellate issues, including parenting time, custody, and property division challenges from a divorce litigated since 2013, received no meaningful review because his attorney's brief was struck as a sanction under Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. § 3-503.3.
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.