Published opinion, 21 July 2025 · source · PDF · 49 pages
FILED July 21, 2025 Carla Bender 4th District Appellate Court, IL - 2 - ¶ 2 Additionally, unrelated to the merits of th e termination of respondent’s parental rights, this court issued a rule to show cause against respondent’s attorney, William T. Panichi, as to why he should not be sanctioned for citing eight nonexistent cases in the briefs he filed on behalf of respondent. For the reasons articulated below, we find that Mr.
After an in-depth review of the briefs, this court recognized that Mr. Panichi cited eight apparently nonexistent cases in respondent’s opening and reply briefs. In one instance, he provided a direct quote from one of these cases.
In one instance, he provided a direct quote from one of these cases. Concerned that respondent’s briefs contained citations to apparently nonexistent cases, this court, on its own motion, ordered Mr. Panichi to file copies of “In re M.F., 2022 IL App (2d) 210614”; “In re A.G., 2022 IL App (1st) 220119”; “In re R.C., 195 Ill.
3d 236 (5th Dist. 1999).” In paragraph 2(c) of his response, he admitted that the “remaining five citations contained in the Appellant’s Brief were determined to be invalid or nonexistent.” He attached copies of the first three decisions referenced in his response. ¶ 44 Mr. Panichi appeared before this court personally on June 18, 2025.
He further explained that he believed that the court’s rule to show cause asked only for him to identify which cases existed, not to argue how those cases applied. ¶ 48 The court then turned to Mr. Panichi’s response in paragraph 2(c) and asked how those five admittedly nonexistent citations came to appear in his brief. Mr.
He then admitted that in preparing the briefs and c onducting research in this case, he used artificial intelligence (AI) to write a draft of the brief, then “looked it over and [he] did not read the cases that were in support of the brief.” He further explained that at the time he filed the briefs in this case, he was “extremely busy” and “was not thorough enough.” He stated that his use of AI was prompted by “a perfect storm” of “temptation of AI out there at a time when [he] was busy and trying to meet deadlines.” He had since learned about AI “hallucinations,” in which the AI “dreams things up when it doesn’t have an answer.” He acknowledged that he should have read the cases that the […]
He stated that if he were allowed to file an amended brief, he would essentially cite all new cases and read them. ¶ 50 This court informed Mr. Panichi that when it was discovered that the cases cited in his briefs apparently did not exist and did not support the assertions in his briefs, the court felt compelled to leave no stone unturned to determine whether these cases existed. The court noted the research done “was significant and time consuming.” As an example, the court explained that when looking into the citation of “In re M.F., 2022 IL App (2d) 210614,” Westlaw and the Illinois Courts website confirmed that no case matching that citation existed.
The quote included in Mr. Panichi’s brief and attributed to “In re M.F., 2022 IL App (2d) 210614,” “incarceration does not preclude a finding of reasonable progress if efforts are made,” did not exist in any case from Illinois, any other state, or any federal court, in its entirety. Even a part of the quote—“incarceration does not preclude” —did not exist in - 20 - any Illinois cases, but it did exist in 57 cases across the country, most of which were to the effect of “incarceration does not preclude termination of parental rights.” This was the breadth of the work the court did in relation to just one of the eight nonexistent cases Mr.