Following a $24 million verdict against the defendant for damages suffered by the plaintiffs’ minor children, the trial court addressed the plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions against the defendant and its legal representatives for submitting false legal citations and factual misrepresentations in their post-trial motions. Jordan v. Chi. Hous. Auth., No. 2022 L 000095, slip op. at 1, 5 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Dec. 5, 2025). In the post-trial motion, the defendant relied on a non-existent case (Mack v. Anderson) as a basis to challenge a purported error by the court. Id. at 2. In a subsequent hearing, the court afforded defendant’s counsel an opportunity to explain the inclusion of an improper citation in the court filing. Id.
The drafting attorney provided initial research and drafting for portions of the post-trial motion, including the citation of Mack (the non-existent case). Id. The drafting attorney admitted to using ChatGPT during her work on the motion and understood that this AI tool was capable of producing hallucinations; however, she claimed that “she did not understand [ChatGPT] could manufacture legal citations with fictitious names and ‘public information.’“ Id. The drafting attorney claimed that her work would be reviewed by other attorneys at the law firm before the motion was filed. Id. at 2-3. At the hearing, the drafting attorney stated: “She had no intent to deceive the court, and she was the only attorney in the firm’s Chicago office in the employment practice group and had ‘no support.’“ Id. at 4. The court noted that the drafting attorney did not reveal that she had been sanctioned by another court (on the previous day)[i] “for citing non-existent case law in a court filing that was generated by ChatGPT.” Id. The court also noted that the drafting attorney (and other attorneys at the law firm) “authored articles in legal forums discussing the use of AI attorneys’ work and cautioning about the risks of accepting AI generated content without verification.” Id.
The lead attorney on the case signed the post-trial motion. Id. at 3. An appellate attorney provided guidance to the lead attorney on the post-trial motion. Id. At the hearing, the lead attorney stated that all of the attorneys on the team reported to him, “and that most of their inquiries to him were about facts and witness testimony from the trial.” Id. While the lead attorney reviewed the motion, he claimed that it was not his role to “‘cite check over 58 cases.’“ Id. The lead attorney also explained that the law firm “had a policy in place prohibiting the use of AI by attorneys, and that the notion an attorney at the firm would employ AI in drafting a brief was not in his contemplation, and the idea was ‘abhorrent’ to him.” Id. The lead attorney also explained that the reference to the Mack case was “‘just an extra’ and as ‘surplusage.’“ Id. The lead attorney also claimed that he relied on the appellate attorney’s expertise on the motion. Id. at 4. The lead attorney asserted that sanctions were not warranted against him, as “he has read the document, and that to the best of his knowledge, information and belief it is well grounded in fact and warranted by existing law.” Id. Moreover, the lead attorney pinned the blame on the drafting attorney. Id.
The court reviewed the pertinent AI policies from the law firm. Id. From July 13, 2023, to March 12, 2025, the law firm prohibited the use of AI without approval from the firm’s leadership and IT department. Id. From March 12, 2025, to June 11, 2025, the policy “required that any firm attorney using artificial intelligence was required to meticulously review any output received through AI for content validity and other concerns.” Id.
In addition to the non-existent case, the plaintiffs identified fourteen instances where the defendant cited cases for propositions that the cases do not support. Id. at 5. The court reviewed several of the misstated cases, concluding that “[t]hese are not nuanced differences in interpretation [but] examples of non-existent quotes and fabricated holdings.” Id. at 5-6. Additionally, the plaintiffs “identified repeated misstatements of the factual record in [the defendant’s] post-trial motion.” Id. at 6.
In the ruling, the court focused on “the inexcusable submission of false authority and factual arguments to the court, the subsequent misrepresentations about the extent of the improper conduct, and the failure to take prompt responsibility for errors once discovered.” Id. at 7. The trial opined:
The obligations on officers of the court at issue here precede by centuries the age of electronic research and artificial intelligence.
The failures to meet those obligations do serious damage to the respect for the legal profession, and they merit sanctions. The most serious sanctionable conduct consists of actions taken after the attorneys had time to consider the consequences of submitting false statements of law and facts to the court, and had time to discover and disclose the full extent of the errors in citations and in factual assertions.
Id. The court underscored its admonition by emphasizing the language of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137, as well as the Illinois Supreme Court Policy on AI. Id. at 7-8. The court stated that the policy reinforced an attorney’s duty to validate their legal and factual assertions while maintaining accountability for their legal and ethical responsibilities. Id. at 8.
In the response brief, the defendant and its attorneys conceded the errors and agreed to pay reasonable attorney fees and costs. Id. at 6. The response specified that any payment should be paid by the law firm, not the defendant. Id. Accordingly, the court determined that any controversy regarding sanctions against the law firm for the actions of its partners was resolved by the firm’s concession on this matter. Id.
In imposing sanctions, the court considered the culpability of the drafting attorney, the lead attorney, the appellate attorney, a tertiary attorney, and the law firm. Id. at 9-12. First, the court decided not to impose sanctions against the appellate attorney and the tertiary attorney. Id. at 10. The court found that these attorneys did not sign the motion, and there was no indication of misconduct that justified sanctions under the court’s inherent powers. Id.
As for the drafting attorney, the court found that she was involved in the initial research and drafting of the post-trial motion, including the citation of Mack, the fictitious case. Id. at 2. The court also found that the drafting attorney used ChatGPT for her work, acknowledging that she was aware of its potential for “hallucinations” but did not realize it could fabricate legal citations. Id. at 2-3. The court acknowledged that the drafting attorney, who was fired from the law firm and was now practicing independently, had been sanctioned in a separate case for similar conduct involving AI-generated citations. Id. at 3-5. The court denied sanctions against the drafting attorney in this case, noting her acknowledgment of professional failures and the consequences she has already faced. Id. at 10, 14.
Turning to the lead attorney, the court stated that he signed the post-trial motion and was responsible for overseeing the team that prepared it. Id. at 3. The lead attorney admitted to not cite checking the cases, and he relied on his team for accuracy. Id. The court imposed sanctions on the lead attorney, citing his failure to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the citations and his repeated false assertions about the extent of the citation errors. Id. at 10-11, 14. The court ordered the lead attorney to pay $10,000 to the plaintiffs’ counsel. Id. at 14.
In the ruling, the court acknowledged that the law firm accepted responsibility for the AI-generated false citations and agreed to pay reasonable attorney fees and costs. Id. at 8, 12. While the firm had policies in place regarding AI use, the drafting attorney violated those policies. Id. at 4. The court granted sanctions against the firm, ordering it to pay $49,500 to the plaintiffs’ counsel. Id. at 14-15. In reaching its decision, the court emphasized the firm’s responsibility for the conduct of its attorneys and the need for accountability in the legal profession. Id. at 12.
In closing, the court discussed the damaging consequences of the defendant’s legal representation failures, highlighting that plaintiffs’ counsel invested 59.5 hours uncovering substantial lapses in the defendant’s post-trial motion. Id. at 12. This effort was necessary to prevent the plaintiffs from potentially losing their rights, as determined by the jury, due to false legal representations. Id. at 13. The court noted that the plaintiffs faced delays in obtaining a final and enforceable judgment due to the necessity of addressing the motion for sanctions. Id. The court emphasized that the matter also posed a threat to the legal profession and the courts, as experienced attorneys cannot make false factual assertions without conducting a reasonable inquiry. Id. The court decided to strike the two sections of the post-trial motion where the citation of false authorities was most egregious, rather than striking the entire motion. Id. The court found that the hourly rate of $1,000 for plaintiffs’ counsel’s legal work was fair and reasonable, based on his experience and the quality of his work. Id. Alternatively, the court determined that a penalty of $59,500 was warranted, given the seriousness of the sanctionable conduct and the stakes involved in the post-trial motion. Id.
[i] The drafting attorney was sanctioned a nominal amount for her work in Calderon v. Dynamic Mfg., Inc., No. 2024 CH 9839 (Ill. Cir. Ct. July 16, 2025).
About the author: Frank Young is a reference librarian and instruction at the University of Illinois Chicago School of Law.