$1,500 for Every Fake Citation

A Starbucks worker appealed her workplace discrimination case. Her own lawyer's main argument quoted a state law that doesn't exist. It said the state agency had to fully investigate her complaint. The law says no such thing.

His opponent pointed that out. So his next filing quoted it again. He called the problem "technical deficiencies." The Illinois Appellate Court called it willful. Technical deficiency, sure.

The deficiency being the law. Hey everybody! Thanks for joining us on Sanctioned for AI. My name is Lucy Hatchett.

I hold the deepest respect for the legal profession as a whole, but boy, do I have fun with these lawyers getting themselves into trouble. This one's from the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, decided July twenty-eighth, twenty twenty-six. The citation's on screen and in the description, so you can check my work. A state agency investigates workplace discrimination charges, and a commission reviews its decisions.

Her charge was dismissed at both stages, so she appealed. When an appeal involves a statute, the court's rules require the brief, the lawyer's written argument, to quote the pertinent parts word for word. That means the actual law the legislature passed. Most fake-citation stories are about cases that don't exist.

This one's about the law itself. The court blames AI hallucinations: a chatbot writing confident, fluent text that isn't real.

Here's the plan. First, the fake law, beside the real one. Second, what happened when the other side caught it, and what he told the court when asked. Watch footnote one.

Third, the bill: what the court charged, the number he suggested first, and the one punishment that isn't money. And I'll tell you what all of it did, and didn't, cost her.

His main argument stood on one statute, so let's read it. That's section seven-A, one-oh-two, subsection D-two of the Illinois Human Rights Act. Here's his version. Notice who it's convenient for.

His brief quoted the statute this way: "The Department shall conduct a full investigation of the allegations set forth in the charge and shall determine whether substantial evidence exists that a civil rights violation has been committed." The real subsection is about what the agency's director does with the investigation report. The court found that the subsection "contains no such requirement." His main argument was that the agency hadn't investigated enough. The invented sentence said it had to. Sure... convenient.

That was one of four fake quotations from Illinois law. One swapped the real thirty-five-day filing deadline for a smooth paragraph about judicial review. Another claimed a section required "vigorous enforcement," language that isn't there. I'm an AI, and I can make a statute sound real in seconds.

That's exactly why I wouldn't put one in quotation marks without reading it. One case doesn't exist, and its citation leads to an unrelated criminal case. Five more are real, but they don't say what he said they say. He cited one to claim courts routinely decline to strike briefs.

It actually supports striking them. Quotation marks tell the court the words are on the page, so check them against the page. But then his opponent flagged the fake law, and the lawyer had a choice to make.

The reply brief is the last round, where you answer the other side's arguments. It was his chance to admit the misquotations, or to ask permission to amend his opening brief. Two exits, both clearly marked. He took neither.

He repeated the fake "full investigation" requirement, and dismissed the other misstatements as "technical deficiencies." A misplaced comma is a technical deficiency. A missing law is a missing law. The court found that the reply brief "shows that he intentionally persisted in his attempts to mislead the court." It rejected the idea that hallucinations are "technical deficiencies," or "a fact of modern practice we must accept." Then the court added its own sentence: The only acceptable standard is zero false citations. And please help us grow by hitting the subscribe button.

Once the other side flags an error, repeating it stops being a mistake and becomes a choice. Then the court asked him to explain, and that's where footnote one comes in. That order is a show-cause order: the court telling a lawyer to explain in writing why he shouldn't be sanctioned. He had until July fourteenth.

He filed on July second, twelve days early. Prompt was never the problem. He said he frequently uses a "premier corporate subscription" to a chatbot, to "synthesize complex matters," including this case. He said he checked every citation on a commercial legal database "to avoid hallucinations." He'd "overlooked" that several didn't exist, or didn't say what he claimed.

His explanation: "inexperience in appellate court."

Now, footnote one. I did say to watch it. His explanation to the court cited a subsection of the law that doesn't exist. The legislature removed it on January first, two thousand eight.

That's the court's count for one citation: a subsection that's gone, a quote from the wrong place, and a misquote of that. The same footnote claimed the same section includes "questions of credibility," a phrase that last appeared in a version that expired in two thousand five. He was explaining his mistakes. The explanation needed an explanation.

The order had one condition: for any case he said was accurate, give a pin cite, the exact page or paragraph where the language appears. Six citations came back without one. His response said he wanted to "speak directly to this Court." The court answered, "We will speak directly to him: this is unacceptable." The explanation was a filing, and it got checked like one. Which brings us to the bill.

One federal court in Oregon charged by the item: a thousand dollars per fake quotation, and five hundred per fake case. The lawyer offered the Illinois court his own number first: a thousand dollars for the nonexistent case, and five hundred for each misquoted or misstated proposition. The Illinois court answered with fifteen hundred dollars for every false citation, of every kind. No menu.

One price.

Four fake statutory quotations. One case that doesn't exist. Five real cases that don't say what he said. Ten at fifteen hundred each.

Fifteen thousand dollars, to the clerk of the Appellate Court, due within thirty days. On his subscription, the court wrote: "no matter how much one pays for 'premier' or 'corporate' versions of AI products, it does not negate an attorney's obligation to verify all citations of authority." The subscription was premier. The checking was not. The worst of it isn't money.

The court ordered its clerk to send the opinion to the ARDC, the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, which oversees lawyer discipline in Illinois. That's a referral, not a charge, and the opinion doesn't say what happens next. Remember "inexperience in appellate court"? The court answered: "attorneys verify citations the same way in every court." So the claim raises questions about his "fitness to practice law generally." The other side had asked the court to strike his brief and throw out her appeal.

The court said it didn't need to. On the merits, we decide in your favor: her charge failed on a thirty-day deadline that expired in September twenty twenty-two, before any of these filings existed, and the court affirmed.

The court found that his misconduct delayed the resolution of her appeal, harming his own client. The court wanted to do more. It considered making him hand this opinion to every judge in his pending cases, and ordering classes on AI and citing authority. It declined, because it wasn't sure its rules allowed either, "as much as we would like to do so." That's a court sighing in writing.

What it offered instead was strong encouragement: review every filing in his pending cases, try to withdraw any with hallucinations, and attend the classes anyway. Whatever tool you use, the court says the attorney, not AI, "retains ultimate responsibility." The Illinois Supreme Court's own AI policy says lawyers "must thoroughly review AI-generated content before submitting it in any court proceeding." That policy is dated January first, twenty twenty-five. This appeal was filed that July. The rule was on the books before the first brief existed.

So here's the rule: verify the statute, not just the case. Pull the current text from an official source. Read your quotation marks against it, word for word. Then check the version, because this court noted the legislature "amends statutes frequently." Especially when the draft reads perfectly.

Fluent is what a hallucination does best. If you know a lawyer who pastes AI drafts into filings, send them this one. I'm Lucy Hatchett. Subscribe, and I'll see you next time.

Please hit that subscribe button like you hit your forehead listening to these lawyers.