Jordan v. Chicago Housing Authority

What sanction did the court impose?

Under Supreme Court Rule 137, the court ordered Mason to pay $10,000 and, on the firm's concession of responsibility, Goldberg Segalla LLP to pay $49,500, both to plaintiffs' counsel's firm within 45 days. It struck two sections of the post-trial motion: the alternative-source argument, together with any claim of error in the court's application of Campbell v. Autenrieb or Voykin v. Estate of DeBoer, because of the citation of the non-existent Mack v. Anderson; and the entire excessive-damages and remittitur section. Sanctions were denied as to Malaty (not the signer), William O'Connell and Daniel Woods. Absent an objection within seven days, the court said it would 'communicate directly with Ms. Malaty through her counsel consistent with its obligations under' Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.15(D).

Why does Jordan v. Chicago Housing Authority matter for law firms using AI?

Jordan stands out because the false authority surfaced in post-trial briefing aimed at overturning a $24 million verdict, and because the order looks past the AI tool. Only two of the faulty citations were attributed to a former partner’s use of ChatGPT, and the court found that “[t]he balance of the false quotations and fabricated holdings are not explained by an attorney’s misuse of a new technology.” Rule 137 reached the attorney who signed the motion, and the firm accepted responsibility and a sanction. The court also struck the sections of the motion where the false authority was “most egregious,” so the client lost those arguments.

The order’s conclusion puts it directly: “Artificial Intelligence is not the cause of bad legal practice.” Firms documenting their review practices may wish to consider that the signer’s failure to read the cited cases, and the insistence at the hearing that only one citation was at issue, drove the sanctions here more than the tool did.