Jordan v. Chicago Housing Authority
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Law Division · Cook County, Ill. · Illinois bar guidance
Verified April 26, 2026
- Citation
- Jordan v. Chicago Housing Authority, No. 2022 L 000095 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty. Dec. 5, 2025) (Cushing, J.)
- Decided
- December 5, 2025
Summary
After a $24 million jury verdict for plaintiffs in a lead-paint case, defendant Chicago Housing Authority's post-trial motion, signed by Goldberg Segalla partner Larry Mason, cited the nonexistent decision Mack v. Anderson as Illinois Supreme Court authority on the central evidentiary dispute. Partner Danielle Malaty admitted using ChatGPT to draft sections of the motion in violation of firm policy and was terminated; on July 17, 2025, Mason repeatedly told Judge Thomas M. Cushing that only one citation was at issue, but plaintiffs identified fourteen misrepresented or fabricated holdings across the post-trial motion, the offer of proof, and a motion for extension of time, including a second nonexistent case (First Chicago Bank v. Brandwein).
- AI tool:
- ChatGPT
- Sanction amount:
- $59,500
What sanction did the court impose?
Two sections of the post-trial motion struck (the Campbell/Voykin alternative-source argument and the entire excessive-damages/remittitur argument). Sanctions of $10,000 against attorney Larry Mason and $49,500 against Goldberg Segalla LLP, payable to plaintiffs' counsel within 45 days. Sanctions denied as to Malaty (non-signer), William O'Connell, and Daniel Woods. Court indicated it would refer Malaty's conduct 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 from the typical hallucination-sanctions case because the fabricated citation surfaced in post-trial briefing aimed at overturning a $24 million verdict, and because Judge Cushing focused his analysis less on the AI tool than on the signing partner’s failure to read the cases in his own brief during the eight weeks between disclosure and the show-cause hearing. For managing partners, the operative lesson is Rule 137’s allocation of responsibility to the signer: Mason was sanctioned not because he used AI (he did not) but because he signed and defended a brief whose citations he had not verified, and continued to insist only one case was at issue when fourteen were. Firms should also note that an existing written AI-use policy did not insulate Goldberg Segalla from a $49,500 sanction.
Sources
Further reading
Source PDF is a Westlaw printout mirrored from the Damien Charlotin hallucination database. We are working to add the underlying court docket (PACER, CourtListener, or court website) as a second source.