Fake AI Citations Result in $15,000 Fine for Illinois Lawyer

Fake AI citations recently cost an Illinois lawyer $15,000 and a referral to the state's attorney discipline board. The Illinois Appellate Court, First District, sanctioned Chicago lawyer Mason Cole after he filed briefs full of fabricated case law and misquoted statutes.

Cole admitted he used a paid version of ChatGPT to help draft filings in Scott v. Illinois Human Rights Commission, a race discrimination case involving a former Starbucks employee. The court found ten separate false citations in Cole's work, including one case that does not exist. Each fake citation cost him $1,500 in fines.

This case fits a growing pattern. Courts across the country are cracking down on lawyers who submit AI-generated errors without first checking them. For Illinois lawyers, the ruling offers a clear warning. Moreover, it raises real questions about professional liability risk and how firms can protect themselves while using new technology in daily practice.

How Fake AI Citations Surfaced in Scott v. Illinois Human Rights Commission

The underlying dispute involved Kimberly Scott, a former Starbucks employee who filed a race discrimination charge with the Illinois Department of Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Ultimately, Scott's case was ultimately dismissed because she missed a 30-day deadline for submitting her EEOC findings to the state agency, and the appellate court upheld that dismissal. However, most of the court's opinion focused on Scott's lawyer, Mason Cole of Cole Sadkin LLC.

According to reporting from the ABA Journal and AlabNews, Cole's briefs contained a case that does not exist, several misquoted statutes, and citations to real cases that did not support his arguments. The court's own opinion counted ten false citations in total: one fabricated case, four misquoted statutes, and five real cases cited for legal points they never actually made.

Cole told the court he used a "premier corporate subscription of ChatGPT" to help synthesize complex legal issues. He said he cross-referenced his citations with LexisNexis but still missed the errors, and he blamed his inexperience with appellate practice. The court was not persuaded. It noted that Cole's written explanation to the judges contained its own legal errors, including outdated statutory citations and unmarked quotations pulled directly from case law.

Why the Appellate Court Increased the Illinois Lawyer’s Fine

The court explained in its written opinion why it set a higher rate than past Illinois rulings. An earlier Fourth District case fined lawyers $1,000 per false AI citation. The First District raised that rate to $1,500, reasoning that a fabricated quote, an invented case, and a real case misrepresented to the court all cause the same harm. Each type forces opposing counsel and the court to spend extra time sorting fact from fiction.

The judges also pointed to similar sanctions nationwide, including a Sixth Circuit case that fined two lawyers $15,000 each and an Oregon federal case that fined a lawyer $15,500. In particular, the court wrote that existing fines have not done enough to stop lawyers from submitting unverified AI content.

Beyond the monetary penalty, the court ordered its clerk to send a copy of the opinion to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. Under the Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct, judges must report lawyer misconduct that raises a serious question about honesty or fitness to practice law. The court found that standard was met here, partly because Cole kept repeating errors even after opposing counsel flagged them and after the court warned that sanctions were possible.

Illinois Lawyers Continue to Violate Rules of Professional Conduct Through AI-Related Sanctions

This case is not an isolated event. Courts in Illinois and across the country are seeing more AI-related sanctions each year as lawyers use generative tools to speed up research and drafting. Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 requires lawyers to provide competent representation, which includes understanding the risks of the technology they use.

Furthermore, Rule 3.3 requires candor toward the court, meaning lawyers cannot knowingly submit false statements of law or fact. Skipping the step of checking each citation puts both duties at risk. Fabricated citations can also open the door to a malpractice claim if a client's case suffers because of missed deadlines, wasted court time, or a damaged reputation.

Understanding how Illinois legal malpractice claims typically arise helps explain why. Courts look for a duty owed to the client, a breach of that duty, and resulting harm. AI tools are not going away, and many firms use them well. The problem lies less with the technology itself and more with the underlying issue of attorneys submitting AI outputs without independently verifying them. Firms that adopt clear internal policies on AI use, including a mandatory citation check before filing, are in a stronger position to avoid this kind of sanction.

Preventing Fake AI Citations in Your Illinois Practice

Fake AI citations are quickly becoming one of the most common and costly risks in modern legal practice. The Cole sanction shows that courts are willing to impose real financial penalties and refer lawyers for discipline when AI-generated errors reach a judge's desk.

However, the fix is straightforward, even if it takes extra time. Every citation, quote, and legal proposition in a filing needs a lawyer's personal review before it goes to court. Treating an AI draft the way you would treat work from a first-year associate, meaning checking it carefully, is a reasonable starting point.

As more Illinois lawyers bring AI into their daily workflow, the firms that build strong verification habits now will be the ones that avoid headlines like this one later. Illinois lawyers who want help building stronger risk management practices around AI can contact the team at ISBA Mutual Insurance Company today.