The passages in which the court addresses the fabricated authority, verbatim, by document. A bracketed ellipsis marks where a passage was cut for length; nothing else is changed.
Docket entry 33, 2 September 2026 · source · PDF · 11 pages
Docket text. ORDER entered by Judge Sara Darrow on September 2, 2026. Before the Court is Attorney David Baldemar Reyes's 32 response to the Court's show cause order. Reyes is ORDERED to pay a fine of $1,000 to the Clerk of Court within sixty d ays and send a copy of this order to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. He must also file a status report with the Court within sixty days, updating the Court on the status of his compliance with this order. Because no request for attorneys' fees and costs has been timely made, the Court declines to award any. (JSH)
Although the Court granted Cole’s motion for default judgment on July 24, 2026, see generally July 24, 2026 Order, ECF No. 27, the motion contained several hallucinated citations, classic indicators of unverified artificial intelligence (“AI”) usage, id. at 11–13. The Court identified a case in the Eastern 1 A more comprehensive discussion of both the underlying facts of this case and the procedural history can be found in the Court’s default judgment order.
2. He states that these citations were included in his motion because he prepared a template using AI, which inserted those 4:25-cv-04217-SLD-RLH # 33 Filed: 09/02/26 Page 3 of 11 4 hallucinated citations. Id.
2026), and only impose minimal ones, id. at 8–9. Reyes’s citation to non-existent cases and misrepresentation of others is not objectively reasonable, and thus merits sanctions. Despite the relatively new nature of and the unique challenges presented by AI, district courts across the Seventh Circuit have consistently and frequently held that the inclusion of even a few hallucinated or mischaracterized cases in filings violates Rule 11.
2026) (proceeding under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 28 and 46); D’Ambrosio v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 2 Although the Seventh Circuit found it plausible that counsel in Dec did not actually use AI, the opinion discusses the dangers of filings containing hallucinated cases, which are only heightened by the proliferation of AI, and emphasizes that the court’s “concern lies with trained lawyers failing to check the accuracy of legal citations and quotations in their filings.” Dec, 171 F.4th at 947. Moreover, the Seventh Circuit has since cited Dec as a case about improper AI usage.
Meta Platforms, Inc., 176 F.4th 928, 941–42 (7th Cir. 2026) (discussing suspected AI usage in a brief and citing Dec to support the assertion that “[s]ubmitting fictitious quotations to a court, regardless of how they are generated, is obviously inconsistent with the standards of conduct this court expects from attorneys”). 4:25-cv-04217-SLD-RLH # 33 Filed: 09/02/26 Page 4 of 11 5 176 F.4th 928, 941–42, 945 (7th Cir.
May 28, 2025). When courts find counsel’s contrition persuasive and the errors are minor, they tend to issue nonmonetary sanctions, see, e.g., Dec, 171 F.4th at 947–48 (admonishing counsel for including AI-hallucinated citations and quotations but declining to impose any additional consequences), or forego sanctions altogether, Hippe v. Retention Brands, LLC, No.
See, e.g., Perez-Castillo, 177 F.4th at 848–49 (imposing a $5,000 sanction on one attorney who submitted a brief containing various AI hallucinations and, after being ordered to fix all citation errors, re-entered the brief with several of the same hallucinated quotations, and referring the other, who admitted to preparing both versions of the brief with assistance from ChatGPT and without further cite checking but expressed great remorse, to the state attorney disciplinary authorities); Mid Cent.
Reyes’s contrition unravels, however, upon closer examination. This is at least the third case in which he has filed briefings with AI hallucinations. In October 2025, he filed a nearly identical motion for default judgment in Hippe which included the same faulty citations.
Docket entry 32, 21 August 2026 · source · PDF · 11 pages
Docket text. RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by David Baldemar Reyes Supplemental Response. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Declaration)(Reyes, David) (Entered: 08/21/2026)
The problematic citations were included in a template that Respondent prepared with the aid of artificial intelligence (“AI”) software that included these “hallucinated” citations.
On July 24, 2026, the Court granted the Motion in part and denied it in part, denying Plaintiff’s request for declaratory relief and granting his request for injunctive relief. In the same Order, the Court directed Respondent to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed against him based upon the inclusion of fabricated and inaccurate citations in the Motion for Default Judgment. This response is submitted in accordance with that Order.
Respondent failed, however, to independently verify every legal authority contained in the final version of the Motion before it was filed , thus further propagating AI hallucinations that had been included in the original version of the template, which Respondent had also failed to thoroughly review and identify.
Respondent recognizes that while AI and templates may serve as drafting aids, the same can never substitute for independently locating, reviewing, and verifying every authority cited in a pleading. As a result of that failure, the Motion contained inaccurate and fabricated citations that should not have been presented to the Court. Respondent recognizes that regardless of the drafting methods employed or the resources consulted during preparation, the responsibility to ensure the accuracy of every legal citation rested solely with him.
Respondent has retained experienced counsel in Chicago to represent his interests in that investigation, which is ongoing. Respondent did not knowingly or intentionally submit inaccurate or fabricated legal authorities to the Court or intend to mislead anyone; nevertheless, he recognizes that the absence of such intent does not excuse the failure to independently verify the authorities before filing. In addition to the corrective measures described above, Respondent has formally retained Attorney William F.
Respondent recognizes the significance of that reference and understands that the Court is appropriately considering this matter in light of those proceedings. Respondent does not dispute that both matters involve motions for default judgment prepared by undersigned counsel that contained inaccurate and fabricated legal citations , which should have been independently verified before filing. Both matters therefore reflect failures in Respondent’s drafting and citation-verification process and implicate the same professional obligation of competence and accuracy owed to the Court.
There, the court publicly admonished counsel after a brief contained nonexistent citations and an inaccurate quotation, but declined to impose additional sanctions after concluding that counsel accepted responsibility, sincerely apologized, represented that the errors were neither knowing nor intentional, and implemented meaningful measures to prevent similar errors in future filings.
V. Conclusion Respondent recognizes the seriousness of the citation deficiencies identified by the Court and sincerely regrets that the Motion for Default Judgment contained inaccurate and fabricated citations, which were the result of his use of AI. Respondent accepts full personal responsibility for those deficiencies and recognizes that the obligation to independently verify every legal authority before filing rests solely with the attorney signing the pleading.
Docket entry 27, 24 July 2026 · source · PDF · 13 pages
Docket text. ORDER entered by Judge Sara Darrow on July 24, 2026. Plaintiff Morgan Cole's 25 motion for default judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff's claim for declaratory relief is DENIED, and his claim for injunctive relief is GRANTED. Attorney David Baldemar Reyes, counsel for Cole, is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why he should not be sanctioned for the inclusion of fabricated and inaccurate citations by August 7, 2026. Plaintiff may file a request for attorney's fees no later than fourteen days after the entry of judgment, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 54.1. The Court will issue a separate injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d). (JSH) (Entered: 07/24/2026)
For the reasons that follow, the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Additionally, because several citations in Plaintiff’s motion appear to be fabricated or do not support the proposition for which they are cited, Attorney David Baldemar Reyes, Plaintiff’s counsel, is ORDERED to show cause why he should not be sanctioned. BACKGROUND1 I.
30, 2021) (“Because injunctive relief must be specific, it is 4:25-cv-04217-SLD-RLH # 27 Filed: 07/24/26 Page 10 of 13 11 imperative that [the p]laintiff be clear about what information she believes the websites were lacking in order for the Court to address the possibility of injunctive relief.” (citation omitted)). c. Order to Show Cause In reviewing Plaintiff’s motion, the Court has uncovered numerous citations that appear to be fabricated or do not support the propositions for which they are cited. Plaintiff’s first citations in paragraphs eighteen and nineteen could not be located on either Lexis or Westlaw.6 Mot.
546 F.3d at 922. 6 The Court does not include the hallucinated citations or discuss them with more specificity to avoid these nonexistent citations becoming part of a published record which could be cited in the future. 4:25-cv-04217-SLD-RLH # 27 Filed: 07/24/26 Page 11 of 13 12 The Court is deeply troubled by these errors.
2026). Furthering the Court’s concern is the fact that hallucinated cases are a telltale sign of AI usage. AI usage is of special concern to the Court because “[i]t promotes cynicism about the legal profession and the American judicial system.” Mata v.
June 23, 2026), he was ordered to show cause for inaccurate citations that “[bore] . . . AI fingerprints.” (noting that the motion for default judgment filed by Attorney Reyes contained two hallucinated cases and relied on Goodman and Sierra Club for propositions wholly unsupported by the cases). 4:25-cv-04217-SLD-RLH # 27 Filed: 07/24/26 Page 12 of 13 13 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(3), Reyes is ordered to explain the source of these inaccuracies, including any AI usage, and why he should not be subject to sanctions from the Court.
Plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief is DENIED, and his claim for injunctive relief is GRANTED. Attorney David Baldemar Reyes, counsel for Cole, is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why he should not be sanctioned for the inclusion of fabricated and inaccurate citations by August 7, 2026. Plaintiff may file a request for attorney’s fees no later than fourteen days after the entry of judgment, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 54.1.