Incident Tracker / United States (federal)
Shelbert v. Baxter International, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-06266 (N.D. Ill.)
·US District Court, Northern District of Illinois·US-FEDWarning
In the Northern District of Illinois, Tyler Shelbert's lawyer filed a motion to strike that relied on a false reading of Instituto Nacional de Comercializacion Agricola. Chief Judge Kendall inferred AI-assisted drafting, denied the motion, admonished counsel and warned both sides that false or hallucinated citations may lead to sanctions.
- Court
- US District Court, Northern District of Illinois
- Date
- 2026-08-26
- Who used the AI
- Lawyer
- AI tool
- Not identified in the record
- Conduct
- Plaintiff's lawyer moved to strike an answer while misusing Instituto Nacional de Comercializacion Agricola for propositions the case did not support. The court inferred AI-assisted drafting, denied the motion, admonished counsel, and warned both sides against filings containing false or hallucinated citations.
- Outcome
- Warning
- Penalty
- No monetary penalty recorded
- Regulatory outcome
- No separate regulatory disposition recorded
- Status
- Verified against listed sources
- Last checked
- 2026-09-04
What was fabricated or misused
- Instituto Nacional de Comercializacion Agricola (Indeca) v. Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co., 858 F.2d 1264, 1270 (7th Cir. 1988) — cited for “An affirmative defense is one that accepts the allegations of the complaint as true but nevertheless asserts additional matter that defeats or avoids liability”; the Seventh Circuit opinion did not support it
- Instituto Nacional de Comercializacion Agricola (Indeca) v. Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co., 858 F.2d 1264, 1270 (7th Cir. 1988) — cited for “It is well settled that a pleading which merely negates an element of the plaintiff’s prima facie case or simply denies liability is not an affirmative defense and should not be pleaded as one”; the Seventh Circuit opinion did not support it
What the court said
“The presumable conclusion was that Tyler had AI review Baxter’s Answer and had it generate his Motion to Strike.”
“The Seventh Circuit opinion in Instituto supports neither of these propositions. See Instituto, 858 F.2d at 1265-72. Indeed, the words “affirmative defense” are not even in the opinion. Id.”
“Had he taken a couple of hours to proofread his work and verify his citations, he might have discovered the mistake. He instead chose to file a Motion with false citations.”
Timeline
- Baxter filed its answer at 6:04 p.m.; Tyler filed a 10-page motion to strike at 7:29 p.m.
- Baxter filed its response at 2:16 p.m.; Tyler filed his reply 2 hours, 21 minutes later.
- Court granted the motion in part, denied it in part, admonished Tyler and warned both parties.
Why this case matters
Shelbert adds a misuse-of-real-authority example. The cited Seventh Circuit case existed, but the motion attributed affirmative-defence rules to it that the opinion did not contain. That places it near State v Coleman and LPC Commercial Services, where false quoted content mattered as much as case existence. The court also linked timing to verification: a 10-page motion filed 85 minutes after the answer, and a reply filed just over two hours after the response, left little room for checking.
Practice note
A motion to strike should not rely on canned propositions unless the lawyer reads the cited case and confirms the words and holding. For each citation, record the source, pinpoint and exact support before filing. If speed comes from AI review of an opponent’s pleading, build in a separate human cite check before the filing is signed.
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
- Hill v. Foundation Media LLC, No. 1:25-cv-05947 (AS) (S.D.N.Y. 2026)2026-09-29 · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · WarningIn New York federal court, Judge Arun Subramanian ordered defence counsel to explain AI-affected quotations in a response brief, took no further action, and called the episode a wakeup call. Counsel's 1 October letter d…
- G.P. v. Jose Hernandez Arevalo, No. C26-284-KKE (W.D. Wash.)2026-09-08 · US District Court, Western District of Washington · WarningIn the US District Court for the Western District of Washington, plaintiff's counsel cited a nonexistent federal case in briefing against Turo. Judge Evanson described the citation as likely AI-fabricated, compelled arb…
- Williams v. Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport Board, No. 4:26-cv-00433-P (N.D. Tex.)2026-08-27 · US District Court, Northern District of Texas · WarningIn the Northern District of Texas, plaintiffs' counsel cited nonexistent and materially inapposite cases while trying to defeat qualified immunity. Judge Pittman called the effort borderline sanctionable, warned that ge…
- Disruptive Resources, LLC v. Ballistic Barrier Products Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00321-JCG (D. Del.)2026-08-20 · US District Court for the District of Delaware (Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves, sitting by designation) · WarningIn a patent case in the US District Court for the District of Delaware, plaintiff's counsel promptly disclosed that a Strongsuit-assisted claim-construction brief contained errors. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves discharged…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Shelbert v. Baxter International, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-06266 (N.D. Ill.)”, safelegalai.com/tracker/shelbert-v-baxter-international (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.