In re A.S.

What sanction did the court impose?

The court dismissed the consolidated appeals, concluding it lacked jurisdiction over the challenges to the permanency review orders and that respondent did not pursue challenges to the other orders. On the citations, it held that "[e]ven accepting Attorney Panichi's questionable claim he simply miscited a case rather than cited a case that did not exist," he "violated Rule 375 by willfully citing multiple cases that do not stand for the propositions of law for which they are cited." It found AI use a "reasonable conclusion" though not admitted, and emphasized "it is not the use of AI itself that is concerning; rather, it is the apparent failure to thoroughly review the work-product therefrom before submitting it to this court." It ordered Panichi to pay $1,000 in monetary sanctions to the clerk of the Fourth District Appellate Court and directed the clerk to send a copy of the decision to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. The order was filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except as Rule 23(e)(1) allows.

Why does In re A.S. matter for law firms using AI?

In re A.S. is a Rule 23 order in which the Fourth District dismissed a consolidated juvenile appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction over the challenges to the permanency review orders and that respondent did not pursue challenges to the other orders, and then addressed the briefing of the father’s court-appointed appellate counsel. The court had identified one citation to a case that appeared not to exist and seven citations to real authorities that did not support the propositions for which they were cited, and it entered a rule to show cause under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 375.

Counsel’s response called the nonexistent case a misnamed citation to In re Marriage of Perez, withdrew a citation to a nonprecedential Rule 23 order, and defended the rest. The court found that position “untenable,” comparing the propositions stated in the briefs with the explanations in the response, and held that “[e]ven accepting” the miscitation claim, counsel had “violated Rule 375 by willfully citing multiple cases that do not stand for the propositions of law for which they are cited.” The court treated its own earlier decision in In re Baby Boy, 2025 IL App (4th) 241427, as relevant history: counsel had admitted there to using AI without thoroughly reviewing its output, and the reply brief in this appeal was filed after that appearance.

The court’s AI statement is an inference, not a finding of admitted use: it called AI use “a reasonable conclusion based upon our review of the briefing, the response to the rule to show cause, and Attorney Panichi’s past conduct,” and added that “it is not the use of AI itself that is concerning; rather, it is the apparent failure to thoroughly review the work-product therefrom before submitting it to this court.” The sanction was $1,000 payable to the appellate clerk, with the decision sent to the ARDC. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that here the court looked at counsel’s conduct across two appeals when deciding what to infer.