Lawyers continued to use AI to generate briefs and other legal pleadings. Somehow they have not learned yet that the AI can hallucinate cases (make cases up) if you ask it to draft a brief. An Illinois lawyer recently used generative AI in a brief for the appellate court and then tried to deflect responsibility when he was questioned about it.

The case is In re Baby Boy, 2025 IL App 4th 241427. The discussion of the transgression is fairly extensive:

¶ 42 The circuit court of Sangamon County appointed Mr. Panichi on November 4, 2024, to represent respondent-appellant in this accelerated appeal from the termination of respondent’s parental rights filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 311(a) (eff. July 1, 2018). After an in-depth review of the briefs, this court recognized that Mr. Panichi cited eight apparently nonexistent cases in respondent’s opening and reply briefs. In one instance, he provided a direct quote from one of these cases. Concerned that respondent’s briefs contained citations to apparently nonexistent cases, this court, on its own motion, ordered Mr. Panichi to file copies of “In re M.F., 2022 IL App (2d) 210614″; “In re A.G., 2022 IL App (1st) 220119″; “In re R.C., 195 Ill. App. 3d 827 (1st Dist. 1990)”; “In re R.D.S., 2021 IL App (2d) 200092″; “In re M.H., Jr., 196 Ill. App. 3d 976 (1st Dist. 1990)”; “In re Brandon E., 382 Ill. App. 3d 389 (2d Dist. 2008)”; “In re K.L.P., 381 Ill. App. 3d 817 (4th Dist. 2008)”; and “In re Ca. B., 386 Ill. App. 3d 507 (2d Dist. 2008).” We further ordered Mr. Panichi to appear before this court personally and show cause why he should not be sanctioned.

¶ 43 On June 16, 2025, Mr. Panichi filed a two-page response to this court’s rule to show cause entitled “Verified Memorandum and Response to June 10, 2025, Order re Rule 375 Sanctions.” He stated in paragraph 2(a) of his response that “the following two cases are valid, published Illinois Appellate Court decisions and were properly cited,” and he cited “In re Brandon A., 395 Ill. App. 3d 224 (4th Dist. 2009),” and “In re Adoption of K.L.P., 316 Ill. App. 3d 110 (4th Dist. 2000).” In paragraph 2(b), he stated that “the following case is a valid published decision but was incorrectly cited in the brief,” and he cited “In re M.F., 304 Ill. App. 3d 236 (5th Dist. 1999).” In paragraph 2(c) of his response, he admitted that the “remaining five citations contained in the Appellant’s Brief were determined to be invalid or nonexistent.” He attached copies of the first three decisions referenced in his response.

¶ 44 Mr. Panichi appeared before this court personally on June 18, 2025. The proceedings were recorded. He acknowledged that he was familiar with the principles of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h) (eff. Oct 1, 2020) and the principles of Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010 Rules 1.1, 3.1, 3.3 (eff. Jan. 1, 2010), and Rule 8.4 (eff. July 1, 2024). He stated that he had been appointed to handle this appeal by the circuit court of Sangamon County and was compensated for his work at the rate of $150 per hour, for a total of $6,925. He did not intend to submit any further invoices for this case. He later addressed this amount, explaining that it “was more than [he] usually charge[s]” and this case “was out of the ordinary in terms of time spent” because his office “did some exceptional work trying to get some other information before the court” by filing “a brief trying to open up the proofs,” but he did not remember the matter exactly.

¶ 45 Regarding his response in paragraph 2(a), the court pointed out to Mr. Panichi that despite his claim that Brandon A., 395 Ill. App. 3d 224, and Adoption of K.L.P., 316 Ill. App. 3d 110, were “valid” cases that “were properly cited,” he had actually cited in his brief “In re Brandon E., 382 Ill. App. 3d 389 (2d Dist. 2008),” and “In re K.L.P., 381 Ill. App. 3d 817 (4th Dist. 2008),” which were completely different citations. (We also noted that Adoption of K.L.P. is a Second District case, not a Fourth District case, as Mr. Panichi wrote in his response.) The court further observed that neither Brandon A. nor Adoption of K.L.P. supports the propositions for which “Brandon E.” and “K.L.P.” were originally cited in his opening brief. Mr. Panichi stated that he was not currently familiar with the content of the cases but claimed that he had been so at one time. He admitted that he did not read either of these decisions before filing his response to the court’s rule to show cause. He later admitted that he misread the court’s rule to show cause as citing “Brandon A.,” when it cited “Brandon E.” He acknowledged that he did not list a citation for “Brandon E.” in his response and never looked up whether “Brandon E.” existed.

¶ 46 Regarding his response in paragraph 2(b), the court noted during the hearing that M.F., 304 Ill. App. 3d 236, the case Mr. Panichi claimed to have intended to cite, did not contain the quotation for which he cited “In re M.F., 2022 IL App (2d) 210614,” in his reply brief. Mr. Panichi admitted that he did not know where he obtained the quotation and did not believe it was accurate. The court stated that Mr. Panichi may have persisted in misleading the court in his statements in paragraphs 2(a) and 2(b) of his response.

¶ 47 Mr. Panichi later explained that his miscitation in his briefs of the three cases he attached to his response to the rule to show cause “might be an example of poor lawyering, poor arguing, stretching principles, I don’t have an answer for that.” However, he then claimed that “to the best of [his] knowledge, [these cases] were cited for the appropriate principles.” He admitted, though, that he had read only one of the three cases he attached to his response and could not remember which one. He further explained that he believed that the court’s rule to show cause asked only for him to identify which cases existed, not to argue how those cases applied.

¶ 48 The court then turned to Mr. Panichi’s response in paragraph 2(c) and asked how those five admittedly nonexistent citations came to appear in his brief. Mr. Panichi initially clarified that he did not claim to have an “excuse,” just an “explanation.” He also informed the court that he had already notified Judge Karen Tharp, who appointed him as counsel in this appeal, as well as his private clients whose appeals were pending, about these proceedings. He then admitted that in preparing the briefs and conducting research in this case, he used artificial intelligence (AI) to write a draft of the brief, then “looked it over and [he] did not read the cases that were in support of the brief.” He further explained that at the time he filed the briefs in this case, he was “extremely busy” and “was not thorough enough.” He stated that his use of AI was prompted by “a perfect storm” of “temptation of AI out there at a time when [he] was busy and trying to meet deadlines.” He had since learned about AI “hallucinations,” in which the AI “dreams things up when it doesn’t have an answer.” He acknowledged that he should have read the cases that the AI presented to him. He additionally admitted that he was “between research software” at the time he prepared the briefs in this case but had since signed up with Westlaw. He informed the court that he did not intend to use AI going forward.

¶ 49 Mr. Panichi admitted that “the whole thing stems from the fact that [he] barely did any personal work [him]self on this appeal.” He stated that he “was careless” and “reckless when [he] did it” and “was wrong to do that.” Mr. Panichi then stated:

“I don’t have any reason that the court shouldn’t sanction me, except for the fact that I didn’t do it intentionally. I did it carelessly, and recklessly, I hadn’t done it before, and if I’m lucky enough to be able to continue practicing before the appellate court, I’m not going to do it again.”

He acknowledged that while he relied on the legal assistant in his office a great deal, he, as the attorney, was ultimately responsible in this matter. He stated, “[W]hatever happens, I deserve whatever consequences fall, and I’m willing to accept them.” Mr. Panichi asked that no sanctions be imposed against respondent, as he was responsible, and further asked the court to consider allowing him to file an amended brief. He stated that if he were allowed to file an amended brief, he would essentially cite all new cases and read them.

¶ 50 This court informed Mr. Panichi that when it was discovered that the cases cited in his briefs apparently did not exist and did not support the assertions in his briefs, the court felt compelled to leave no stone unturned to determine whether these cases existed. The court noted the research done “was significant and time consuming.” As an example, the court explained that when looking into the citation of “In re M.F., 2022 IL App (2d) 210614,” Westlaw and the Illinois Courts website confirmed that no case matching that citation existed. There were 20 Illinois cases titled “In re M.F.,” but none of those cases contained the quotation included in Mr. Panichi’s reply brief or any similar statement. Moreover, no Second District case existed under case No. 21-0614, though there was a Fourth District case with case No. 21-0614, People v. Taylor, 2022 IL App (4th) 210614-U, which was irrelevant. The quote included in Mr. Panichi’s brief and attributed to “In re M.F., 2022 IL App (2d) 210614,” “incarceration does not preclude a finding of reasonable progress if efforts are made,” did not exist in any case from Illinois, any other state, or any federal court, in its entirety. Even a part of the quote—”incarceration does not preclude”—did not exist in any Illinois cases, but it did exist in 57 cases across the country, most of which were to the effect of “incarceration does not preclude termination of parental rights.” This was the breadth of the work the court did in relation to just one of the eight nonexistent cases Mr. Panichi cited in his brief. The court noted that it was explaining this process to Mr. Panichi to illustrate how seriously the court took this matter, as well as the impact of Mr. Panichi’s actions on the court’s ability to do its other work efficiently.

¶ 51 When asked during the proceedings if he had any infirmities that would contribute to his carelessness in this case and his ability to practice law, Mr. Panichi stated that other than a hearing loss, he had “typical short term memory loss” and was overwhelmed by paperwork, but “to the best of [his] knowledge, [he] retain[s] 80, 90% of [his] faculties and memory on other matters” and believed he is competent to practice law.

¶ 52 On June 27, 2025, this court ordered Mr. Panichi to file an affidavit with a copy of any petition for fees and costs that he filed in the Sangamon County circuit court pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 299 (eff. Jan. 1, 2024), along with documentation of his receipt of payment. He did so on June 30, 2025. His affidavit and petition confirmed that he was compensated in the amount of $6,925.62 by the Sangamon County treasurer for his work in connection with his appointment in this appeal.

The result: “For the reasons articulated below, we find that Mr. Panichi violated Illinois Supreme Court Rule 375 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994) and order that (1) Mr. Panichi disgorge the payment of $6,925.62 he received for his work on this appeal; (2) Mr. Panichi pay $1,000 as monetary sanctions to the clerk of the Fourth District Appellate Court; and (3) the clerk of the Fourth District Appellate Court send a copy of this opinion to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.”

Comment: This is my opinion. Obviously, the lawyer made two errors. The first was using generative AI without cite checking the brief to determine if the cases cited were real. The second more serious error was trying to claim that he miss cited real cases. The appellate court had to do some extensive work to determine whether the cases were real and were miss cited. They were not miss cited. They simply had names similar to the hallucinated cases. No matter how much we advise lawyers not to use generative AI without doing a full cite check, lawyers are unable to resist this temptation. Do your own work or face embarrassment or worse. I predict that the ARDC will open an investigation and possibly prosecute the lawyer for attempting to mislead the appellate court with his claims that two of the cases were actually just miss cited.