Ethics – Attorney Evan Brown

July 23, 2025 Artificial Intelligence, Ethics, Litigation

AI fake cases crisis reaches Illinois Appellate Court for the first time

illinois appellate

The Illinois Appellate Court for the Fourth District issued a decision that marks the first time an Illinois court at this level has addressed attorney misuse of artificial intelligence. While the sad underlying matter involved the termination of parental rights, the appellate decision is noteworthy for another reason: the use of fictitious legal citations generated by AI.

The Appeal

Respondent appealed from a trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her two minor children. The appeal raised several arguments, including challenges to the trial court’s findings on unfitness and best interests, a due process claim regarding self-representation, and a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court ultimately affirmed the trial court’s decision. However, the focus of the opinion shifted when the court found irregularities in the appellate briefs that respondent’s appointed counsel had filed.

The Court’s Review of the Briefs

After reviewing the briefs, the court noticed that eight cited cases did not exist. The court ordered counsel to explain the source of these citations and to appear in person. Counsel responded by acknowledging that five of the cited cases were fictitious. He explained that he had used AI to assist in drafting the brief and did not independently verify the citations it produced. For the remaining three cases, which were real, the court found that the actual content did not support the legal arguments presented in the brief.

The Role of AI and Legal Responsibility

The court’s opinion noted that AI tools such as generative chatbots can assist legal professionals but must be used with caution. Citing recent guidance from the American Bar Association and the Illinois Supreme Court’s new AI policy, the court emphasized that attorneys are responsible for reviewing and verifying all material submitted to a court, regardless of how it was generated.

The court concluded that the attorney had not reviewed the AI-generated citations and that this lack of verification resulted in inaccurate filings. It clarified that while use of AI is not prohibited, reliance on unverified outputs can compromise the integrity of legal proceedings.

Sanctions Imposed

Rather than striking the briefs, the court chose to address the appeal on the merits but imposed monetary sanctions under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 375. It ordered the attorney to (1) return the $6,925.62 he had been paid by Sangamon County for his representation, (2) pay an additional $1,000 fine to the appellate clerk, and (3) submit a copy of the opinion to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.

The court noted that these measures were intended to ensure accountability and to reinforce the expectations surrounding the use of AI in court proceedings.

In re Baby Boy, — N.E.3d —, 2025 WL 2046315 (Ct. App. Ill. 4th Dist., July 21, 2025)

July 10, 2025 Artificial Intelligence, Ethics, Litigation

Immigration attorney hit with sanctions for using Claude to generate fake case citations

A federal court imposed sanctions on a petitioner’s attorney for submitting fabricated legal quotations generated by the AI tool Claude Sonnet 4 in an emergency habeas case seeking to halt a client’s deportation. Facing an expedited timeline and suffering from a respiratory infection, the attorney admitted he used AI to draft a supplemental brief and failed to verify the quotations, despite knowing AI tools are prone to hallucinations.

The court found this conduct violated Rule 11 and constituted subjective bad faith, noting that the attorney either consciously avoided checking his sources or deliberately ignored the opposing party’s warning about the fake quotes.

While courts have typically imposed monetary sanctions ranging from $1,500 to $15,000 in similar cases, the court here imposed a reduced $1,000 fine in light of mitigating factors, including the attorney’s prompt admission, withdrawal of the filing, and enrollment in a continuing legal education (CLE) course on ethical AI use. He was also ordered to file proof of CLE completion.

The decision underscores that AI use in legal practice does not excuse attorneys from their duty to confirm the accuracy of filings and that even in emergency settings, courts will hold lawyers accountable for unverified, fictitious legal content.

Kaur v. Desso, 2025 WL 1895859 (N.D.N.Y. July 9, 2025)

March 6, 2024 Artificial Intelligence, Ethics

Lawyers and AI: Key takeaways from being on a panel at a legal ethics conference

Earlier today I was on a panel at Hinshaw & Culbertson’s LMRM Conference in Chicago. This was the 23rd annual LMRM Conference, and the event has become the gold standard for events that focus on the “law of lawyering.”

Our session was titled How Soon is Now—Generative AI, How It Works, How to Use it Now, How to Use it Ethically. Preparing for and participating in the event gave me the opportunity to seriously consider some of the key issues relating to how lawyers are using generative AI and the promise that wider future adoption of these technologies in the legal industry holds.

Here are a few key takeaways:

- Effective use. Lawyers are already using generative AI in ways that aid efficiency. The technology can summarize complex texts during legal research, allowing the attorney to quickly assess if the content addresses her specific interests, is factually relevant, and aligns with desired legal outcomes. With a carefully crafted and detailed prompt, an attorney can generate a pretty good first draft of many types of correspondence (e.g., cease and desist letters). Tools such as ChatGPT can aid in brainstorming by generating a variety of ideas on a given topic, helping lawyers consider possible outcomes in a situation.

- Access to justice. It is not clear how generative AI adoption will affect access to justice. While it is possible that something like “legal chatbots” could bring formerly unavailable legal help to parties without sufficient resources to hire expensive lawyers, the building and adoption of sophisticated tools by the most elite firms will come at a cost that is passed on to clients, making premium services even more expensive, thereby increasing the divide that already exists.

- Confidentiality and privacy. Care must be taken to reduce the risk of unauthorized disclosure of information when law firms adopt generative AI tools. Data privacy concerns arise regardless of the industry in which generative AI is used. But lawyers have the additional obligation to preserve their clients’ confidential information in accordance with the rules governing the attorney-client relationship. This duty of confidentiality complicates the ways in which a law firm’s “enterprise knowledge” can be used to train a large language model. And lawyers must consider whether and how to let their clients know that the client’s information may be used to train the model.

- Exposing lawyering problems. Cases such as Mata v. Avianca, Park v. Kim and Kruse v. Karlen—wherein lawyers or litigants used AI to generate documents submitted to the court containing non-existent case citations (hallucinations)—tend to be used to critique these kinds of tools and tend to discourage lawyers from adopting them. But if one looks at these cases carefully, it is apparent that the problem is not so much with the technology, but instead with lawyering that lacks the appropriate competence and diligence.
- AI and the standard of the practice. There is plenty of data suggesting that most knowledge work jobs will be drastically impacted by the use of AI in the near term. Regardless of whether a lawyer or law firm wants to adopt generative AI in the practice of law, attorneys will not be able to avoid knowing how the use of AI will change norms and expectations, because clients will be effectively using these technologies and innovating in the space.

Thank you to Barry MacEntee for inviting me to be on his panel. Barry, you did an exemplary job of preparation and execution, which is exactly how you roll. Great to meet my co-panelist Andrew Sutton. Andrew, your insights and commentary on both the legal and technical aspects of the use of AI in the practice of law were terrific.

April 1, 2009 Ethics

Technology ethics: Seminar on responsible telephone use

As an attorney I feel an obligation to preach to you about what’s right and what’s wrong. People routinely trivialize this important duty by characterizing the subject matter as “ethics” or “professionalism.”

As a technology attorney, especially as one cool enough to use Twitter and be on Facebook, I feel a special obligation to instruct you on responsible use of social media. I’ll get to that.

First we need to address some of the basics concerning wise use of technology. Starting with the telephone.

In this downturned economy, I’m looking for every opportunity I can to supplement my income. So I’m offering a one day seminar called Telephone Ethics: Avoiding the Pitfalls Inherent in Voice Communications Technology. Registration is $995 dollars. Email me to sign up. But hurry, only a few seats are still available!

With the advent of the telephone, lawyers are threatened with almost certain peril and inevitable claims of malpractice. In this full day, in-depth course, we will look at the issues that arise each day as lawyers adopt this ~~frightening~~ intriguing technology. Subjects will include:

Diligence: Avoid violating Rule 1.3 — which requires a lawyer to be diligent in representing a client — by promptly returning phone calls.
Confidentiality: Oops! Did I just spill the beans and violate Rule 1.6 by forgetting to shut the door of that phone booth?
Polite Ambulance Chasing: What to say when phoning the victim of that bad accident you saw on the freeway. How to delicately let him know you’re a lawyer while navigating the Rule 7.3 minefield.
Much, much more!

And we’ll also have some fun. I’m lining up a special telephone expert TBA who will give some practical tips on how to better monetize your telephone use. That session will be called “Dialing for Profit: Let Your Fingers Do The Walking to a Successful Law Practice.” Check back at this Web page later for more details.

Future seminar topics will include Responsible Faxing: How to Keep the Disciplinary Committee Off Your Line, and Appropriate PowerPoint Obfuscation: Making Sure Your Bullet Points Aren’t Too Sparse.

CLE accreditation will be requested if there is sufficient interest. Heaven knows we need those ethics credits. Oh, and happy April 1.

Telephone photo courtesy Flickr user smudie under this Creative Commons license.