ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT IMPOSES HARSH SANCTIONS FOR MISUSE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (“AI”) IN WORKPLACE DISCRIMINATION CASE

Stacia Peterson

Aug 31

4 min read

Illinois’ First District Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a workplace discrimination action finding the Court lacked jurisdiction based on the petitioner’s failure provide timely notice of her claim to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Scott v. Ill. Human. Rights Comm'n, 2026 IL App (1st) 251462, ¶¶ 1, 69-70. The issue on appeal was simple and quickly resolved by the Court, but the Court authored a lengthy opinion to explain the basis for imposing sanctions against the petitioner’s attorney, Mason Cole (“Cole”).ⁱ

Following the usual paradigm, after receiving the petitioner’s brief and noting it contained “multiple citations of AI-hallucinated legal authority,” violations of the Florida Supreme Court rules, false statutory quotations, and citations to caselaw “that do not support the propositions of law” for which they were cited, the Court issued a show cause order requiring Cole to respond and explain the various violations.ⁱⁱ Cole responded and explained that he used “a premier corporate subscription of ChatGPT to ‘synthesize complex matters,’ ”including the petition in this case, and conceded “that all the quotations and citations” noted by the Court “were false.” ⁱⁱⁱSurprisingly, Cole claimed his “inability to properly verify the cites [was] a result of [his] inexperience in appellate court."

To add injury to insult, Cole ostensibly used the same AI tech to generate his show cause response which, the Court noted, contained citations to “a statutory subsection that no longer exist[ed], attribute[d] a quote to the wrong [statutory] subsection…misquote[d] statutory language” and in some places failed to include quotation marks at all.^iv

As if that was not bad enough, Cole also failed to include pin cites for six cases which the Court specifically directed Cole to do if he contended “any of the case citations [were] accurate.”^vThe Court expressed its frustration with Cole’s work product and, noting Cole’s remark that he wanted “to completely avoid legalese and speak directly” to the Court, the Court responded “We will speak directly to him: this is unacceptable.”^viThe Court elaborated:

Cole's [show cause] response should have included scrupulously accurate and precise citations. Instead, it is yet another sloppy filing that misstates the law and creates more work for this court. We do not know why attorney Cole feels compelled to rush out obviously flawed filings, but this must stop. This type of lawyering is harming attorney Cole's clients, his own professional reputation, and this court's workflow.

The Court relied on the following rules as the basis for imposing sanctions: (1) Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(5) (requires inclusion, verbatim, of any pertinent statutory provisions), (2) Rule 375(b) (prohibits frivolous arguments), (3) Ill. R. Pro. Conduct (2010) R. 3.1 (eff. Jan. 1, 2010) (requires a good faith basis for bringing or defending an action), (4) Ill. R. Pro. Conduct (2010) R. 3.3(a)(1) (prohibits an attorney from knowingly making false statements, (5) Ill. R. Pro. Conduct (2010) R. 8.4(c) (eff. July 1, 2024) (prohibits dishonest, fraudulent, or deceitful conduct of an attorney), (6) " Ill. R. Pro. Conduct (2010) R. 1.1 (eff. Jan. 1, 2010) (requires an attorney to provide competent representation to a client), and (7) Illinois Supreme Court’s stated policy that requires attorneys’ to “thoroughly review AI-generated content before submitting it in any court proceeding…”.^vii

After spending considerable time discussing the sanctions imposed for similar infringing conduct in other cases and noting it would like to impose “additional nonmonetary sanctions [were it not limited by Rule 375],” the Court imposed a $15,000 fine against Cole and directed the clerk to send a copy of the sanctions opinion to the Illinois Registration and Disciplinary Commission.^viii

The monetary sanction included a $1,500 fine for each of the following ten violations: “4 false statutory quotations, 1 nonexistent case, and 5 cases that exist but do not contain the cited principle or quoted language.”^ixLastly, the Court explained that although severe, the sanction was warranted to deter future misuse of AI which wasted judicial resources and adversely affected the parties and their counsel.^xBased on Cole’s misconduct, the Court’s sanction award seems warranted.

In a hurry? Click here for the key points.

Illinois’ First District Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a workplace discrimination action finding the Court lacked jurisdiction based on the petitioner’s failure to provide timely notice of her claim to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Scott v. Ill. Human Rights Comm'n, 2026 IL App (1st) 251462, ¶¶ 1, 69- 70. The substantive issue on appeal was simple and quickly resolved by the Court, but the Court authored a lengthy opinion to explain the basis for imposing sanctions against the petitioner’s attorney, Mason Cole (“Cole”), for his misuse of AI software.
Cole responded to the Court’s show cause order and acknowledged that he used “a premier corporate subscription of ChatGPT to ‘synthesize complex matters.’ ” He also conceded “that all the quotations and citations” noted by the Court “were false.” Failing to learn from his mistakes, Cole ostensibly used the same AI tech to generate his show cause response which the Court noted contained many of the same errors.
After spending considerable time discussing the sanctions imposed for similar infringing conduct in other cases and noting it would like to impose “additional nonmonetary sanctions [were it not limited by Rule 375],” the Court imposed a $15,000 fine against Cole and directed the clerk to send a copy of the sanctions opinion to the Illinois Registration and Disciplinary Commission. Based on Cole’s misconduct, the Court’s sanction award seems warranted.

ⁱScott, at ¶¶ 17-63.

ⁱⁱScott, at ¶ 36.

ⁱⁱⁱScott, at ¶ 37. Future references to this case are to this paragraph until indicated otherwise. ^ivScott, at ¶¶ 38-39.

^vScott, at ¶ 40.

^viScott, at ¶ 41. Future references to this case are to this paragraph until indicated otherwise. ^viiScott, at ¶¶ 42-46.

^viiiScott, at ¶¶ 56, 59-60.

^ixScott, at ¶ 59.

^xScott, at ¶¶ 57-58.