Scott v. Illinois Human Rights Commission
Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Second Division · Ill. App. Ct. (1st Dist.) · Illinois bar guidance
Conduct
Briefs with 10 false citations, including invented statutory text and a nonexistent case; the reply repeated a flagged fake quotation.
Consequence
$15,000 personal sanction ($1,500 per false citation) and referral of the opinion to the ARDC; the appeal was decided on the merits.
Lesson
A paid or 'premier' AI subscription does not reduce the duty to verify; this panel priced the sanction per false citation.
Verified September 28, 2026
- Citation
- Scott v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n, 2026 IL App (1st) 251462
- Decided
- July 28, 2026
Summary
On a petition for review of the Illinois Human Rights Commission's order sustaining the dismissal of a workplace racial discrimination charge against Starbucks Coffee Company, the petitioner's briefs, filed by Mason Cole of Cole Sadkin, LLC, contained 10 false citations: 4 fabricated quotations of statutes and administrative rules (including a nonexistent "full investigation" requirement attributed to section 7A-102(D)(2) of the Human Rights Act), 1 nonexistent case ("Harris v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n, 2022 IL App (1st) 210454," whose citation leads to an unrelated criminal case), and 5 real cases cited for language or principles they do not contain. The reply brief repeated the false "full investigation" quotation after respondents flagged it and dismissed the errors as "technical deficiencies." In response to the court's order, Cole conceded every citation was false and said he uses "a premier corporate subscription of ChatGPT" and had "cross-referenced" each citation with LexisNexis.
- AI tool:
- ChatGPT (counsel stated he "frequently use[s] a premier corporate subscription of ChatGPT" to "synthesize complex matters")
- Sanction amount:
- $15,000 against attorney Mason Cole ($1,500 for each of 10 false citations and quotations), payable to the clerk of the Appellate Court, First District, within 30 days; opinion sent to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission
What sanction did the court impose?
The court affirmed the Commission, holding that the 30-day deadline in section 7A-102(A-1)(1)(iv) is jurisdictional and cannot be equitably tolled, and denied respondents' request to strike the brief and dismiss the appeal. Finding Cole's misconduct willful, it sanctioned him under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 375(a) and (b): $15,000, a $1,500 fine for each false citation and quotation, payable to the clerk of the Appellate Court, First District, within 30 days. The clerk was directed to send the opinion to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. The court considered but did not impose CLE or service of the opinion on the judges in Cole's other pending matters, citing uncertainty about its authority under Rule 375, and instead strongly encouraged Cole to review, and where necessary seek to withdraw, filings in his other pending cases.
Why does Scott v. Illinois Human Rights Commission matter for law firms using AI?
Scott is notable for how it prices a sanction. The court counted the false citations (four fabricated statutory quotations, one nonexistent case, five real cases cited for things they do not say) and imposed $1,500 for each, acknowledging “this rate is somewhat higher than what courts have imposed in the past” and explaining that every false citation should carry the same rate and that a higher rate is needed to deter. Counsel had proposed $1,000 for the nonexistent case and $500 for each misquotation. The court also rejected the characterization of AI hallucinations as “just ‘technical deficiencies’ or a fact of modern practice we must accept,” stating that “[t]he only acceptable standard is zero false citations.”
The court’s reasoning draws on the Illinois Supreme Court’s policy on artificial intelligence and ABA Formal Opinion 512, together with Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 3.1, 3.3(a)(1), and 8.4(c). Because counsel’s explanation was his “inexperience in appellate court,” the court observed that “attorneys verify citations the same way in every court, so this claim raises questions about attorney Cole’s fitness to practice law generally,” and sent the opinion to the ARDC.
The court did not strike the brief or dismiss the appeal, deciding the case on its merits instead. For firms, the holding separates the client’s appeal from the lawyer’s sanction. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider a verification step that covers quoted statutory and regulatory text as well as case law, since AI tools fabricate both.
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 statutory and regulatory quotations against the official text, not just case citations. Four of the ten false citations here were invented statutory or administrative-code language.
- Review any reply brief that responds to an opponent's hallucination challenge. The court treated the repeated false quotation, and the characterization of the errors as 'technical deficiencies,' as evidence of willfulness.
- Document that paid AI products get the same verification as free ones. The court: 'no matter how much one pays for "premier" or "corporate" versions of AI products, it does not negate an attorney's obligation to verify all citations of authority.'
- Consider a proactive review of other pending matters after an AI citation problem surfaces. The court encouraged counsel to review every filing in his pending cases and to seek to withdraw any containing hallucinations.