In re M.H., M.L., and M.H., Minors
Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division · Ill. App. Ct. (1st Dist.) · Illinois bar guidance
Conduct
Here the Public Guardian objected that the appellant's brief misstated holdings, miscited cases, and referenced cases that do not exist.
Consequence
Rule to show cause issued to the appellant's counsel, with any sanction reserved for a separate written order; the court reached the merits and affirmed.
Lesson
Here the court decided the appeal on the merits despite the objection and addressed the brief's accuracy through a separate show-cause proceeding.
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- In re M.H., 2026 IL App (1st) 250013-U, No. 1-25-0013 (Ill. App. Ct. May 28, 2026) (Rule 23 order)
- Filing date
- May 28, 2026
Summary
The Mother appealed Cook County orders adjudicating her children abused or neglected and placing them in the care of the Department of Children and Family Services. Before reaching the merits, the court addressed "an issue that the Public Guardian raised regarding numerous substantive inaccuracies in the Mother's brief." It recounted the Public Guardian's point that "throughout her brief, the Mother misstates the facts or holdings of cases she cited in support of her arguments, incorrectly cites others, and references cases that do not exist," and its argument that "the Mother's reliance on fictitious case holdings" violated Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) and warranted forfeiture. The order records that the trial court appointed an attorney to represent the Mother on appeal. It does not identify the cases, does not mention artificial intelligence, and does not name counsel.
- AI tool:
- Not mentioned in the order (the court describes the Public Guardian's objection that the brief references "cases that do not exist"; it does not attribute the inaccuracies to AI)
- Amount or terms:
- None imposed in the May 28, 2026 order; a rule to show cause was issued to the Mother's counsel, with any sanction to follow in a separate written order
What is the current procedural posture?
In a Rule 23 order by Justice Quish (Presiding Justice Navarro and Justice Ocasio concurring), the court declined to find the Mother's arguments forfeited, reasoning that the merits could be ascertained from the record and the other parties' briefs, and affirmed the adjudication and disposition orders. It stated that "simultaneously with this decision, we issued a rule to show cause order to the Mother's counsel, requiring her to file a response addressing these issues," and that "[i]n the event we find sanctions are warranted, we will issue a separate written order imposing the sanction." No sanctions ruling appears in the order.
Why does In re M.H., M.L., and M.H., Minors matter for law firms using AI?
The First District’s order in this juvenile appeal shows a court separating the merits from the briefing problem. The Public Guardian objected that the Mother’s brief misstated the facts or holdings of cited cases, miscited others, and referenced cases that do not exist, and asked the court to find her arguments forfeited under Rule 341(h)(7).
The court declined to decide the appeal on forfeiture. Because the merits could be ascertained from the record and the other parties’ briefs, it reviewed the adjudication and disposition orders and affirmed them. It then noted that it had “simultaneously” issued a rule to show cause to the Mother’s counsel, requiring a response on the brief’s inaccuracies, and said it would issue a separate written order if it found sanctions warranted. The order itself makes no finding about the cited cases and does not mention artificial intelligence.
Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that here the client’s appeal was decided on the merits while the brief’s accuracy was addressed through a rule to show cause directed to the Mother’s appointed counsel.
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- Verify every citation in an appellate brief against the reporter. Here the Public Guardian's objection that the brief referenced cases that do not exist led to a rule to show cause against counsel.
- Review how a brief characterizes the holdings it relies on. The objection covered misstated facts and holdings of cited cases as well as cases that do not exist.
Sources
Primary sources
- The order does not itself find that any cited case does not exist; it recounts the Public Guardian's objection and then issues a rule to show cause 'addressing these issues.' AI attribution is a Charlotin tracker inference; the order does not mention artificial intelligence.
- The outcome of the rule to show cause had not been located as of 2026-09-30; a search of the Illinois Courts decision list found no later order in this appeal.