Incident Tracker / United States (state)
In re M.H., M.L., and M.H.
·Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division·US-STATEPendingprovisional
On 2026-05-28, in In re M.H., M.L., and M.H., Minors, Appellate Court of Illinois, First District ordered mother to show cause within fourteen days why sanctions should not be imposed for fictitious authorities. Counsel filed a response using nonexistent or hallucinated authorities and authorities used for propositions they did not support.
- Court
- Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division
- Date
- 2026-05-28
- Who used the AI
- Lawyer
- AI tool
- Not identified in the record
- Conduct
- Mother’s counsel filed a brief that misstated facts or holdings of cited cases, incorrectly cited other cases, and referenced cases that do not exist. The court issued a rule to show cause to counsel.
- Outcome
- Pending
- Penalty
- No monetary penalty recorded
- Regulatory outcome
- No separate regulatory disposition recorded
- Status
- Provisional — written by the court-decisions pipeline, awaiting the editor
- Last checked
- 2026-09-08
Primary sources for this incident
Related regulation records for this incident
No related regulation record has been linked to this incident yet.
Similar incidents on the record
- Lisandrillo v. Palozzi, No. 4D2026-2262 (Fla. 4th DCA)2026-09-16 · District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District · PendingIn Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal, petitioner's counsel Jaclyn R. Soroka filed an emergency writ petition and related filings the court suspected contained AI-generated components, including convoluted false…
- Kid International, LLC v. City National Bank of Florida, No. 4D2025-2599 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)2026-10-07 · District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District · SanctionsIn Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal, counsel for Kid International filed an AI-assisted brief citing a hallucinated case seven times and fabricated quotations from real authorities. The court affirmed on the me…
- Cervantes v. Bianco, No. S295866 (Cal. Sept. 24, 2026)2026-09-24 · Supreme Court of California · Regulatory referralIn California, the state Supreme Court disapproved the improper use of AI tools in the Riverside County sheriff's briefing in a ballot-seizure writ case, after the law firm misquoted Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors…
- State ex rel. Schnell v. Richardson, No. ED114731 (Mo. Ct. App.)2026-09-08 · Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District · SanctionsIn the Missouri Court of Appeals, relator's counsel Jenna Rohr Conley admitted using generative AI to research a mandamus petition and failing to verify two cases that did not exist. The court denied the writ and impose…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “In re M.H., M.L., and M.H.”, safelegalai.com/tracker/in-re-m-h-m-l-and-m-h-minors (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.