Heriberto Perez-Castillo v. Todd W. Blanche
7th Cir. CA · Jun 1, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- 7th Cir. CA
- Record ID
- heriberto-perez-castillo-v-todd-w-blanche-2026-06-01
- Observed outcome
- The court denied the petition for review, imposed a $5,000 fine on attorney Salah, admonished attorney Chalisa, and referred the matter to the Illinois ARDC.
- Known monetary consequence
- $4,997
Why this matter warrants attention
The court imposed a $5,000 monetary sanction on attorney Abdullah Salah under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46(c) for failing to verify AI-generated content in his filings. The court also admonished the assisting attorney, Farah Chalisa, and referred both attorneys to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission for further investigation into potential ethical and professional conduct violations.
The court reasoned that Salah's failure to review the brief before signing and submitting it, despite certifying its accuracy, constituted egregious misjudgment and conduct unbecoming of a bar member, warranting sanctions under Rule 46(c).
This case illustrates the severe consequences for lead counsel who fail to verify AI-assisted filings. It highlights that outsourcing research to non-appearing counsel does not absolve the signing attorney of the duty to ensure the accuracy of all citations and factual assertions.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Bar Referral
- Immigration
- Appellate
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- ChatGPT
- Known monetary consequence
- $4,997
- Procedural posture
- The court issued an order to show cause regarding the use of generative AI in an appellate brief, reviewed responses from counsel, and subsequently issued a final opinion denying the petition for review while imposing sanctions.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
Attorneys admitted using ChatGPT for stylistic review.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.