Kateryna Maslovska v. Ekaterina Shigabetdinova
AC Illinois · Mar 11, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The court issued a formal caution to both parties regarding their failure to comply with the Illinois Supreme Court Policy on AI after identifying six non-existent or misrepresented legal citations in their appellate briefs. No monetary or professional sanctions were imposed; the court affirmed the underlying judgment due to the appellant's failure to provide a sufficient record.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that the parties' briefs violated Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341 and the Illinois Supreme Court Policy on AI by including six citations that were either non-existent or did not support the cited propositions. The court emphasized that self-represented litigants are accountable for their work product and must verify AI-generated content.
- Why it matters now
- This case illustrates that appellate courts are actively monitoring filings for AI-generated hallucinations and misrepresentations, even in pro se matters. It reinforces that all litigants, regardless of representation status, bear responsibility for the accuracy of their submissions and compliance with AI-specific court policies.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Four citations in the defendant's briefs were styled as legal authorities but did not exist or could not be verified; court noted they appeared to be AI-generated and unsupported. Outcome: Warning (both parties). Appellate court found briefs from the parties contained six AI-style citations (four from defendant, two from plaintiff) that either did not exist or did not support the propositions for which they were cited. The court cautioned compliance with the Illinois Supreme Court Policy on AI but imposed no sanctions and affirmed the judgment due to an inadequate record on appeal.
This case illustrates that appellate courts are actively monitoring filings for AI-generated hallucinations and misrepresentations, even in pro se matters. It reinforces that all litigants, regardless of representation status, bear responsibility for the accuracy of their submissions and compliance with AI-specific court policies.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court referenced the parties' use of generative AI.
Appellate review of a small claims breach of contract judgment.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Four citations in the defendant's briefs were styled as legal authorities but did not exist or could not be verified; court noted they appeared to be AI-generated and unsupported.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Two citations in the plaintiff's brief were cited for propositions they did not support; court characterized these as inaccurate/misrepresented citations likely produced by generative AI.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Kateryna Maslovska v. Ekaterina Shigabetdinova?
- The court issued a formal caution to both parties regarding their failure to comply with the Illinois Supreme Court Policy on AI after identifying six non-existent or misrepresented legal citations in their appellate briefs. No monetary or professional sanctions were imposed; the court affirmed the underlying judgment due to the appellant's failure to provide a sufficient record.
- Why does Kateryna Maslovska v. Ekaterina Shigabetdinova matter for legal AI risk?
- This case illustrates that appellate courts are actively monitoring filings for AI-generated hallucinations and misrepresentations, even in pro se matters. It reinforces that all litigants, regardless of representation status, bear responsibility for the accuracy of their submissions and compliance with AI-specific court policies.
- What does the public record establish about Kateryna Maslovska v. Ekaterina Shigabetdinova?
- 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 Kateryna Maslovska v. Ekaterina Shigabetdinova 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.