A quarter of the citations in filed briefs are Westlaw or Lexis ids. We list them, we do not guess.Coverage ›

Replays · Bankr. N.D. Ill. · July 18, 2025

In re Martin

A chapter 13 plan, a creditor's objection, and a response brief that quoted four bankruptcy decisions on creditor standing. The court looked each one up and set out what it found in a two-column table: what the brief claimed, and what exists.

Court
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Decision
Memorandum Opinion, July 18, 2025 (ECF 78), 18 pages.
Docket
Case No. 24 B 13368
The filing
The debtor's response to a secured creditor's objection to her chapter 13 plan (Dkt. No. 51, June 2, 2025), later withdrawn.
Sanctioned
The debtor's lawyer and his firm.
Sanction, in the court's words
The court ordered the lawyer and the firm, "jointly and severally, to pay a penalty of $5,500 to the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court within 10 days" (Memorandum Opinion, p. 18) The lawyer and another senior lawyer of the firm also had to attend a session on AI at the national bankruptcy judges' conference.
AI tool, as the decision states it
"ChatGPT" (Memorandum Opinion, p. 7)
Public record
Memorandum Opinion, July 18, 2025 (ECF 78); the case on CourtListener.

What the court found

The court found that counsel "cited four cases for a proposition of law, but none of them exist as alleged in his brief." (Memorandum Opinion, p. 6)

"lawyers blindly relying on generative AI and citing fake cases are violating Bankruptcy Rule 9011 and will be sanctioned." (Memorandum Opinion, p. 15)

Each citation the court listed

as filedwhat the court saidwhat the register holds at this citationour default check today
1In re Montoya, 341 B.R. 41 (Bankr. D. Utah 2006)Quoted in the filing: "[a] secured creditor's standing to object to confirmation is limited to issues that affect its rights directly."In re Montoya exists, and the citation is correct. However, "not only does the language quoted by counsel not appear anywhere in the court's opinion, but the opinion does not address issues of standing at all." (p. 6)In Re Montoya (Bankr. D. Utah 2006)Check this Quoted language not in the opinion
2In re Jager, 344 B.R. 349 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2006)Quoted in the filing: "not entitled to raise objections related to other creditors or the debtor's disposable income.""In re Jager, 344 B.R. 349 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2006) does not exist." (p. 6)No case starts at this page. It falls inside Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of National Forge Co. v. Clark (In Re National Forge Co.) (W.D. Pa. 2006), which starts at 344 B.R. 340.Check this Quoted language not in the opinionFlagged, but for the quotation. The page falls inside a different case, In re National Forge Co., which starts at 344 B.R. 340. The check did not compare that name with In re Jager; it compared the quoted words with that case's text.
3In re Coleman, 373 B.R. 907 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 2007)Quoted in the filing: "the plan proposes to alter the treatment of its secured claim in violation of §1325(a)(5).""not only does counsel's quotation not appear in the case at all, the opinion does not discuss the proposition for which it is cited, let alone support it." (p. 6)At this citation, per the court: In re Coleman, 373 B.R. 907, a case from the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Missouri, not Wisconsin (p. 6)In Re Coleman (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2007)Check this Quoted language not in the opinion
4In re Russell, 458 B.R. 731 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2011)Quoted in the filing: "A secured creditor's standing is limited to objecting to the treatment of its claim. It lacks standing to object to confirmation based on issues like feasibility or disposable income that do not directly impact its rights.""Yet again, the quotation from counsel's brief does not appear anywhere in the court's opinion, and the opinion does not touch on the topic of standing at all." (p. 6)At this citation, per the court: In re Russell, 458 B.R. 731, a 2010 case from the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, not a 2011 case from Wisconsin (p. 6)In Re Russell (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2010)Check this Quoted language not in the opinion

4 citations. Run September 24, 2026 with the default check, engine 0.5.0, register data of June 30, 2026: 4 Check this. Each citation was pasted as a line of text (the quoted words first, where we have them) and checked the way the checker checks a draft: no language model, nothing stored. The register column is a direct lookup of the volume and page.

What a check before filing would have shown

All four rows would have been red. Three say the quoted words are not in the opinion the register holds at that cite, and the fourth, In re Jager, was flagged the same way, against the case the register holds at that page.

What this page does not show

  • Coleman and Russell also carry the wrong court (and, for Russell, the wrong year). The default check does not compare the court or year in the parenthetical with the register; the report shows the register's court beside the case name.
  • Whether a case is still good law. This is not a citator.
  • Anything about the lawyers beyond what the court wrote.

Check your own draft

Paste the draft or upload the PDF. The default check reads every case citation and returns rows like the ones above in a few seconds, with no language model and nothing stored. It is free to try without an account. Then read what the court would read: every case you cite, at the page you cite.

Check a draft before you fileAll replays

Published September 24, 2026, updated September 24, 2026. We read the decision and copied the court's list; if we have misread it, write to hello@proofread.law. The rows are from the run dated above; they can change when the checker does.