Tekway, Inc. v. AT&T Services, Inc.
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division · N.D. Ill. · Illinois bar guidance
Conduct
Tekway's summary judgment brief cited Webb v. Frawley at 392 F.3d 815; the court said that case does not exist and the real Webb v. Frawley does not mention the proposition.
Consequence
No sanction or warning; the court noted the nonexistent case in a footnote and granted AT&T summary judgment on the merits.
Lesson
Here the court checked the real case bearing the same name and found it did not support the proposition either; the citation drew only a footnote.
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Tekway, Inc. v. AT&T Services, Inc., No. 20 CV 04095, Memorandum Opinion and Order (N.D. Ill. July 14, 2026) (Harjani, J.), ECF No. 165
- Decided
- July 14, 2026
Summary
Tekway, Inc., a subcontractor that assigned four information technology consultants to AT&T Services, Inc., sued AT&T for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage (Count 9) and civil conspiracy (Count 10) after the consultants left Tekway while keeping their AT&T work. AT&T moved for summary judgment, arguing Tekway had no reasonable expectation that the employment relationships would continue. In footnote 6 of the opinion, the court addressed two authorities in Tekway's brief. Botvinick v. Rush University Medical Center "only discusses the third element of purposeful interference." Tekway also cited "Webb v. Frawley, 392 F.3d 815, 819 (7th Cir. 2004), for the proposition that a reasonable probability of continued employment absent any interference is ordinarily a fact question." The court stated: "However, that case does not exist, and the real Webb v. Frawley case at 906 F.3d 569 (7th Cir. 2018) does not mention this proposition." The opinion does not mention artificial intelligence, does not name Tekway's counsel, and does not say how the citation came to be in the brief.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the order flags a nonexistent citation but does not mention AI or name a tool)
How did the court address the AI-related conduct?
Judge Sunil R. Harjani granted AT&T summary judgment on both remaining counts, holding that the record showed the consultants did not wish to remain at Tekway and that Tekway offered no competing evidence of a reasonable expectation of continued employment; the derivative conspiracy claim fell with it, and judgment was to be entered for AT&T. The court imposed no sanction, issued no warning, and ordered no response concerning the Webb v. Frawley citation; the only treatment of it is the footnote. Separately, AT&T had sought attorneys' fees and costs as a Rule 11 sanction for Tekway's continuing to litigate claims it said a Texas court had decided in July 2022. The court denied that request because it resolved the motion on the merits without reaching preclusion, and so did not decide whether Tekway pursued the suit with an improper motive or without adequate investigation. That fee request was unrelated to the citation.
Why does Tekway, Inc. v. AT&T Services, Inc. matter for law firms using AI?
Tekway is a footnote case. The court granted AT&T summary judgment because Tekway offered no evidence that its consultants wanted to keep working for it, and the opinion’s treatment of the defective citation is confined to footnote 6. There, Judge Harjani noted that Tekway had cited Webb v. Frawley, 392 F.3d 815 (7th Cir. 2004), for the proposition that a reasonable probability of continued employment is ordinarily a fact question, and stated that “that case does not exist, and the real Webb v. Frawley case at 906 F.3d 569 (7th Cir. 2018) does not mention this proposition.”
The opinion says nothing about artificial intelligence, and it does not ask Tekway’s counsel to explain the citation. The Charlotin tracker lists the case as one of implied AI use; that attribution is the tracker’s, not the court’s. The footnote says only that the cited case “does not exist” and that the real Webb v. Frawley decision at 906 F.3d 569 does not mention the proposition. The same footnote notes that another authority Tekway relied on, Botvinick, addresses a different element of the tort.
There was a sanctions motion in the case, but it had nothing to do with the citation. AT&T asked for fees under Rule 11 on the theory that Tekway kept litigating issues a Texas court had resolved in 2022; the court denied it because it decided the case without reaching preclusion. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that a defective citation can surface in a court’s written opinion even when no one moves for sanctions over it and the court imposes none.
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 the volume, page, and year of every case cite, not just the case name. Here a real Seventh Circuit case called Webb v. Frawley exists at a different citation, and the court found it does not mention the proposition Tekway cited it for.
- Review each authority against the proposition it is cited for. In the same footnote the court said another of Tekway's authorities, Botvinick, only discusses a different element of the tort.
- Document cite-checking on summary judgment briefs. The court's footnote puts the defective citation in its written opinion even though no sanction followed.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution is a Charlotin tracker inference ('Implied'); the opinion says only that the cited case 'does not exist' and does not mention AI or explain the citation's origin.