The growth of the Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) Industry has served to both help and hurt the professional world. While AI aims to increase work efficiency and aid professionals in many different industries, its use necessitates caution. In a recent opinion, the Sixth Circuit admonished two attorneys for repeated and improper use of AI in their briefs. Whiting v. City of Athens et al, Case No. 24-5918/5919 Dkt. 50-2 (6th Cir. Mar. 13, 2026). The Court stated that with “a conservative estimate,” the pair had cited to dozens of fake citations and other plainly false representations. When the Court first noted the problems, it issued an order directing the pair to provide copies of all cited cases, highlight quoted material, explain who wrote the briefs, and explain their cite-checking procedures. After refusing to do so, both attorneys were hit with heavy financial sanctions – they had to pay the court $15,000 a piece in punitive fees, and they also had to pay the opposing parties double their attorneys’ fees in all three of the consolidated appeals. The Court also noted that the pair had damaged the reputation of the Sixth Circuit Appellate Bar and likely violated their professional conduct obligations.

While Illinois sits in the Seventh Circuit, the Sixth Circuit opinion is indicative of a growing problem – and importantly demonstrates courts’ growing intolerance of improper use of AI. As recently as February 9, 2026, Judge Shah of the Northern District of Illinois cautioned a plaintiff against the continued use of AI in his briefings after the Court found several citations to non-existent cases. Bettis v. Gaston et al, Case No. 1:25-CV-982, Dkt. 39 at 4 n. 2 (N. D. Ill. Feb. 9, 2026). Similar results were reached by Northern District Judges Johnston and Pallmeyer when they received briefs citing fake cases. See In Halpern v. FRB of N.Y., Case No. 3:25-cv-50381, Dkt. 45 at 5 n. 2 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 17, 2025); Dorsey v. Ponce et al, Case No. 1:25-cv-1212, Dkt. 37 at 5 n. 4 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 4, 2025). While the court did not impose sanctions in these situations, that leniency was likely due to the pro se nature of the litigants. In another case, similar conduct by a licensed attorney would have ended in sanctions had the attorney not already been referred to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. In re R. L. v. Anezka, 202 IL App (4th) 241211-U, ¶¶117-18. Some judges have even gone as far as to create local rules banning the use of AI to draft or support memorandums of law.

The writing on the wall with AI is clear – proceed with caution. It may appear easy to avoid the pitfalls of AI, but there are a number of mistakes AI can make. Citations to fake cases are the most discussed issue, but there any number of errors AI is prone to making. AI can often find real cases but cite improper sections of those cases. AI is also known to miscite cases and argue that they stand for legal principles that are unsupported by the actual text. While AI has many uses, it is a tool – and concerns about AI furnishing nonexistent law or incorrectly interpreting cases are real.

For more information about this article, please contact Alexander T. Myers at amyers@tresslerllp.com.

Alexander (Alex) T. Myers serves as an associate in Tressler’s Local Government and Litigation Practice Groups. His practice is primarily focused on civil rights litigation, tort litigation, employment litigation and counseling, matters arising from section 1983, and police misconduct. Alex’s legal background as a Deputy Attorney General for the Office of the Indiana Attorney General (OAG) encompassed numerous litigation topics across both state and federal courts. Click here to read Alexander’s full attorney bio.