Published opinion, 28 July 2026 · source · PDF · 31 pages
For the following reasons, we affirm. We also sanction petitioner’s attorney Mason Cole for submitting briefs containing false citations and quotations that are the product of artificial intelligence (AI) hallucinations. Below, we set out the sanctions we impose and our bases for imposing them. ¶ 2 I.
3d 334, 338 (1992). But before turning to petitioner’s arguments, we must address her attorney’s multiple citations of AI-hallucinated legal authority. ¶ 17 A. Petitioner’s Violation of Supreme Court Rules ¶ 18 Respondents request that we strike petitioner’s brief and dismiss this appeal due to her noncompliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h) (eff.
As we explain below, the record is sufficient to determine that the Department lacked jurisdiction over petitioner’s charge. Citations of fictitious legal authority do not automatically justify striking a brief and dismissing an appeal. In re Baby Boy, 2025 IL App (4th) No.
Accordingly, we deny respondents’ request to strike petitioner’s brief and dismiss this appeal. However, we must address petitioner ’s attorney’s pattern of presenting multiple fabricated quotes of statutory language and case citations. ¶ 34 Illinois appellate court decisions generally address fabricated quotations and citations under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 375 (eff. Feb.
1, 1994). Courts have interpreted this to include relying on nonexistent legal authority. See, e.g., Baby Boy, 2025 IL App (4th) 241427, ¶¶ 117-19.
Id. ¶ 35 a. Attorney Cole’s Response ¶ 36 To comply with Rule 375(a)’s notice -and-hearing requirement and Rule 375(b)’s show cause procedure, courts have ordered parties and attorneys to (1) file written responses explaining the AI -hallucinated citations in their briefs , (2) appear at hearing s to explain the hallucinated citations, or (3) do both. See, e.g., Baby Boy, 2025 IL App (4th) 241427, ¶¶ 43-44 (written response No.
Attorney Cole claims that he “cross-referenced” every citation in his briefs “with Lexis- Nexis to avoid hallucinations.” However, he “overlooked” that several of those citations either do not exist, like Harris, or do not stand for the propositions of law for which he cited them , like Abrahamson and Gusciara.
1, 1994). Arguments based on AI -hallucinated citations are frivolous because “citation to a fake opinion does not provide a non -frivolous ground for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law, or for establishing new law.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Baby Boy, 2025 IL App (4th) 241427, ¶ 118. In this case, the Commission found that the Department lacked jurisdiction to investigate petitioner’s charge of workplace racial discrimination because petitioner did not submit the EEOC’s findings to the Department within 30 days of receiving them, which the Act and the Code required her to do.