Kateryna Maslovska v. Ekaterina Shigabetdinova
AC Illinois · Mar 11, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- AC Illinois
- Record ID
- kateryna-maslovska-v-ekaterina-shigabetdinova-2026-03-11
- Observed outcome
- The court affirmed the trial court's judgment and issued a caution to both parties regarding their use of AI and citation practices.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated Legal Authority
- Misrepresented Legal Authority
- Failure To Verify AI Generated Content
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Generative artificial intelligence (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appellate review of a small claims breach of contract judgment.
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
The court referenced the parties' use of generative AI.
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.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.