Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesD'Angelo v. Vaught
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

D'Angelo v. Vaught

CC Illinois · Apr 2, 2025

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court imposed a $2,000 monetary sanction against attorney Scott Walker for twice citing a non-existent case in court filings. The attorney attributed the error to the use of Smokeball's AI tool, Archie, which he claimed inadvertently altered or replaced his intended citations during the document editing process.

Why the court cared
The court reasoned that under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137, an attorney's signature certifies that a filing is well-grounded in fact and law. The court determined that the attorney's failure to verify the existence of cited cases, whether due to negligence or reliance on AI, warranted a sanction to deter future frivolous filings and uphold the integrity of the court's proceedings.
Why it matters now
Vendor-branded legal AI tools like Smokeball's Archie still hallucinate; treat every output as unverified until cite-checked.

Why this matter is tracked

In D'Angelo v. Vaught, the Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit of Illinois sanctioned attorney Scott Walker $2,000 for citing a non-existent case, Hauter v. DeWitt, in two separate court filings. The attorney admitted to using Archie, an AI tool developed by Smokeball, to edit his drafts, which resulted in the insertion of the fabricated citation. The court found that regardless of whether the error was intentional or negligent, the attorney failed to fulfill his duty under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 to ensure that filings are well-grounded in fact and law. The court emphasized that counsel must thoroughly review AI-generated content and understand the limitations of the tools they employ before submitting work to the court.

Operational lesson

Vendor-branded legal AI tools like Smokeball's Archie still hallucinate; treat every output as unverified until cite-checked.

Record details

IllinoisSingle-state evidence scope
Explore ILOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtCC Illinois
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit7th Circuit
DateApr 2, 2025
AR
AI toolArchie (Smokeball)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeThe court ordered attorney Scott Walker to pay a $2,000 sanction ($1,000 per citation) to the Lawyers Assistance Program.
Known amount$2,000
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

admitted

The attorney admitted in an affidavit to using Archie, an AI developed by Smokeball.

Procedural posture

The court initiated sanctions proceedings on its own motion following the discovery of fabricated case citations in filings dated October 18, 2024, and January 3, 2025.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Questions this record answers

What happened in D'Angelo v. Vaught?
The court imposed a $2,000 monetary sanction against attorney Scott Walker for twice citing a non-existent case in court filings. The attorney attributed the error to the use of Smokeball's AI tool, Archie, which he claimed inadvertently altered or replaced his intended citations during the document editing process.
Why does D'Angelo v. Vaught matter for legal AI risk?
Vendor-branded legal AI tools like Smokeball's Archie still hallucinate; treat every output as unverified until cite-checked.
What does the public record establish about D'Angelo v. Vaught?
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Which source supports this D'Angelo v. Vaught summary?
The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

Related matters

Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.