Background
This matter arose from disputes over equipment purchased from two data centers in Mount Prospect, Illinois. In 2013, Therm Flo obtained a judgment against the Pressman defendants for breach of contract and negotiated a settlement including a promissory note. In December 2015, P-Three Development purchased one data center and acquired Therm Flo’s rights under the $253,000 settlement note. Critically, P-Three signed a release on December 16, 2015, irrevocably discharging the Pressman defendants from all claims related to the note.
In January 2021—more than five years later—P-Three filed suit against the Pressman defendants and others, alleging nonpayment on the settlement note and claiming the release was a forgery. Ravi K. Kadiyala, P-Three’s sole manager and employee, made sworn statements denying he had signed the release. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding the release binding and enforceable based on documentary evidence showing Kadiyala had signed and transmitted it. The court subsequently sanctioned P-Three under Rule 137 when discovery proved Kadiyala’s forgery allegations false.
Kadiyala then sought to intervene in the litigation, claiming he would be adversely affected as 100% owner, manager, and personal guarantor on an unrelated mortgage. The trial court denied intervention. On appeal, Kadiyala proceeded pro se with an appellate brief that contained extraordinary procedural defects.
The Court’s Holding
The Illinois Appellate Court struck Kadiyala’s brief and dismissed the appeal for flagrant noncompliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341. The court identified multiple categories of violations: (1) citation to at least four entirely fictitious cases that do not exist, including “Greer v. Illinois Housing Development Auth.,” “S.I.T.E. v. Board of Education,” “People ex rel. Hartigan v. St. James Dormitory Corp.,” and “People v. Ortega” (2018 citation); (2) fabricated quotations and holdings attributed to real cases bearing no relation to intervention law; (3) misquotation of the statutory language of section 2-408(a)(3) itself; and (4) gross mischaracterization of precedent, including claiming cases about fraud in construction contracts and will contests addressed intervention doctrine.
The court found evidence suggesting Kadiyala relied on generative AI to draft his brief without adequate review for accuracy. The opinion noted parallels to a recent Fourth District case, *In re Baby Boy*, where an attorney admitted using AI to generate a brief with eight nonexistent citations. The court emphasized that while Illinois allows AI use, litigants must “thoroughly review AI-generated content before submitting it” to ensure accuracy and compliance with legal and ethical obligations. The court declined to reach the merits of the intervention arguments given the severity of the procedural violations and struck the brief, exercising its discretion under Rule 341.
Key Takeaways
- Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys regarding compliance with appellate rules; pro se status provides no exemption from Rule 341 requirements.
- Flagrant use of AI-generated content without verification constitutes an abuse of the adversary system and wastes court resources, warranting dismissal of appeals.
- Courts will not overlook egregious violations merely because the appellant proceeded without counsel; the expectation of due diligence applies equally to all parties.
- Citation to nonexistent cases, fabricated quotations, and misstatements of controlling law violate fundamental appellate rules and may result in summary dismissal without reaching substantive arguments.
Why It Matters
This decision represents a critical moment in judicial response to AI-generated legal work. As generative AI tools become more prevalent, courts are establishing that passive reliance on AI outputs—particularly those containing “hallucinated” citations—will result in serious consequences, including dismissal of appeals and potential sanctions. The opinion serves as a stark warning that AI cannot replace human review and verification, especially in high-stakes contexts like appellate litigation.
The ruling also reinforces that appellate courts maintain strict gatekeeping authority over briefing compliance. By refusing to overlook procedural defects regardless of underlying merits, the court preserves the integrity of the appellate process and protects judicial resources. For practitioners and pro se litigants alike, the decision underscores that the sophistication of available tools does not diminish the responsibility to ensure accuracy and good faith in court filings.