Incident Tracker / United States (state)
Scott v. Illinois Human Rights Commission, 2026 IL App (1st) 251462
·Appellate Court of Illinois, First District·US-STATEFine
The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, affirmed dismissal of a Starbucks employee's discrimination charge and sanctioned her lawyer USD 15,000 under Supreme Court Rule 375 for ten AI-hallucinated statutory quotations and case citations. The court set a USD 1,500 per-citation rate, saying fines must rise until they deter, and referred counsel for discipline.
- Court
- Appellate Court of Illinois, First District
- Date
- 2026-07-28
- Who used the AI
- Lawyer
- AI tool
- ChatGPT (per counsel's response to the court)
- Conduct
- Attorney Mason Cole filed opening and reply briefs containing ten false items: four fabricated statutory quotations, one nonexistent case and five real cases misdescribed, plus an improper statement of facts. Counsel attributed the errors to a ChatGPT corporate subscription.
- Outcome
- Fine
- Penalty
- US$15,000
- Regulatory outcome
- Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission: At paragraph 82 the court directed the clerk of the Appellate Court, First District, to send a copy of the opinion to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (opinion read 3 Sep 2026). No ARDC disposition yet on record. (2026-07-28)
- Status
- Verified against listed sources
- Last checked
- 2026-09-03
What was fabricated or misused
- 775 ILCS 5/7A-102(D)(2) — falsely quoted as requiring “The Department shall conduct a full investigation”
- 56 Ill. Adm. Code 5300.530(b) — falsely quoted as allowing reconsideration for new evidence or an error of law or fact that affected the outcome
- 775 ILCS 5/8-111(B)(1) — falsely quoted as giving any aggrieved party judicial review in the district where the violation occurred under the Administrative Review Law as modified by Rule 335
- 775 ILCS 5/1-102(A) — falsely quoted as requiring “vigorous enforcement” of antidiscrimination protections
- Harris v. Illinois Human Rights Comm’n, 2022 IL App (1st) 210454 — nonexistent case; the related 210454-U citation led to People v. Riley-Palmer
- Gusciara v. Lustig, 346 Ill. App. 3d 1012 (2004) — did not include a “definition of arbitrary and capricious action”
- Village of Oak Lawn v. Illinois Human Rights Comm’n, 133 Ill. App. 3d 221 (1985) — did not define “substantial evidence” as counsel quoted
- Abrahamson v. Illinois Department of Professional Regulation, 153 Ill. 2d 76, 88 (1992) — did not describe a “reasoned consideration” standard and did not mention de novo review
- Hall v. Naper Gold Hospitality, LLC, 2012 IL App (2d) 111151, ¶ 7 — paragraph 7 supported striking briefs, not routinely declining to strike them
- Whipple v. Department of Rehabilitation Services, 269 Ill. App. 3d 554 (1995) — did not state that review of a Human Rights Commission order follows the Administrative Review Law framework
What the court said
“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.”
“Attorney Cole states that he “frequently use[s] a premier corporate subscription of ChatGPT” to “synthesize complex matters,” including this case.”
“Attorney Cole’s briefs contain a total of 10 false citations: 4 false statutory quotations, 1 nonexistent case, and 5 cases that exist but do not contain the cited principle or quoted language.”
“The only acceptable standard is zero false citations.”
Timeline
- Scott filed discrimination charges with the Department and EEOC.
- EEOC dismissed the charge and issued a right-to-sue letter.
- Scott emailed the EEOC determination to the Department.
- Department dismissed the charge for lack of substantial evidence.
- Court ordered Cole to explain false quotations and citations.
- Cole responded, admitting the cited false material.
- Court affirmed dismissal, fined Cole $15,000, and ordered ARDC notice.
Why this case matters
Scott is a state-appellate escalation record. Illinois had already seen Baby Boy and related Fourth District referrals with USD 1,000 fines, but the First District set a USD 1,500 rate for every false citation or quotation. The false material was not limited to cases; it included invented statutory language that became counsel’s main jurisdiction and merits theory. That makes the record a useful comparison to TOV, where the legal propositions stayed sound, and to Barteca, where the sanction turned on false case quotations in motion practice.
Practice note
For statutory appeals, paste the operative statute and rule text from the current official source, then compare the final brief against it word for word. Every case cite needs a pinpoint to the quoted language or proposition. A show-cause response must use current statutes and pin cites too; it is not a place for another unverified AI pass.
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
- Capital Standard, LLC v. U.S. Bank National Association, No. 2D2024-1392 (Fla. 2d DCA)2026-08-21 · Florida Second District Court of Appeal · FineFlorida's Second District Court of Appeal affirmed a foreclosure-related declaratory judgment and, in a separate section citing the Charlotin database, fined appellant's counsel USD 1,500, awarded U.S. Bank its appellat…
- 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…
- Douglas v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., No. 24-CV-1099 (D.C. Ct. App.)2026-09-03 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Regulatory referralIn the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Deutsche Bank's appellee brief cited four nonexistent authorities after counsel used Google's generative AI search tool without verification. The court struck the brief, ref…
- In re Faisal S. Ahmed (Minnesota attorney discipline)2026-08-21 · Supreme Court of Minnesota (stipulated attorney discipline) · SuspensionMinnesota lawyer Faisal Ahmed agreed to a 30-day suspension, approved by the Supreme Court of Minnesota, for a 2025 Hennepin County District Court memorandum that cited two nonexistent, AI-hallucinated decisions. Press…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Scott v. Illinois Human Rights Commission, 2026 IL App (1st) 251462”, safelegalai.com/tracker/scott-v-illinois-human-rights-commission (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.