When something goes wrong at work, many employees do the same thing: they open ChatGPT and ask whether they have a claim.

It makes sense. AI is available 24 hours a day, responds instantly, and often sounds remarkably confident. Whether you’ve been fired, demoted, harassed, denied a promotion, or forced to resign, getting an immediate answer can be tempting.

The problem is that confident does not mean correct. Nearly every day, I field questions from clients or potential clients questioning whether what AI told them about their claim was correct. And more often than not, the answer is no.

A recent Illinois appellate court decision serves as a powerful reminder of the unreliability of AI in legal matters. In July 2026, the court sanctioned an attorney $15,000 after finding that his briefs contained false legal citations, fabricated statutory quotations, and other inaccuracies that were generated through ChatGPT. The court concluded that lawyers have an independent obligation to verify everything AI produces and referred the attorney to disciplinary authorities. 

If an attorney can be sanctioned for relying on AI, employees should think twice before trusting a chatbot to evaluate their legal claims.

AI Doesn’t Know Enough About Your Situation

Employment law is rarely straightforward.

Most workplace disputes turn on details that a chatbot either does not know or does not know to ask.

For example:

  • Was your employment at-will?
  • Did you sign an arbitration agreement?
  • Did your employer know about your disability?
  • Was there a legitimate business reason for the decision?
  • Did you file an EEOC charge on time?
  • Are there witnesses who support your account?
  • What documents exist?
  • What state law applies?

A chatbot may confidently tell someone they have a strong discrimination claim while missing facts that completely undermine the case. It may also tell someone they have no claim at all when a skilled employment lawyer would immediately recognize a viable retaliation or whistleblower claim.

Legal analysis is only as good as the facts provided. AI cannot investigate facts, interview witnesses, review documents, or identify what may be missing from the story.

AI Hallucinates. Courts Have Learned That the Hard Way.

One of the biggest problems with generative AI is that it occasionally invents information. This phenomenon is commonly called a “hallucination.”

The Illinois sanctions case involved precisely that problem. According to the appellate court, the attorney’s filings contained false citations, nonexistent legal authorities, and quotations that did not appear in the statutes he cited. The court expressly rejected any attempt to blame the technology and imposed sanctions designed to deter future misuse of AI in legal filings. 

Most employees are not in a position to determine whether an AI-generated legal answer is accurate or not. If the system invents a legal rule, cites a nonexistent case, or misstates the law, many users have no way to recognize the error.

Your Conversations With AI May Not Be As Private As You Think

Many people assume that conversations with AI platforms are confidential. That assumption is often wrong and could prove costly.

Courts and litigants are increasingly confronting questions about whether AI interactions may be discoverable during litigation. If an employee uploads documents, shares evidence, discusses settlement strategy, or enters attorney communications into an AI system, those interactions could potentially become relevant in a lawsuit. Concerns have also been raised about whether sharing legal advice with certain AI platforms could waive claims of attorney-client privilege. 

Information you would never voluntarily provide to your employer could become part of a future discovery dispute. That is not a risk most employees consider when they type their first prompt.

AI Doesn’t Understand Litigation Strategy

Even when AI accurately identifies a potential claim, it cannot design a legal strategy. Experienced employment attorneys frequently advise clients to take strategic actions that have little to do with legal research, such as:

  • Preserving evidence;
  • Documenting retaliation;
  • Reporting misconduct internally;
  • Avoiding damaging communications;
  • Protecting confidential information;
  • Complying with company policies; and
  • Timing a resignation appropriately.

Those practical considerations often determine whether a case succeeds. A chatbot might tell you whether a statute exists. It cannot replace years of litigation experience and strategic judgment.

The Missed-Deadline Problem

Some of the strongest employment claims are lost because employees wait too long. We see this all the time. Employment law claims are subject to some of the shortest deadlines out there including agency filing deadlines, arbitration deadlines, contractual notice provisions and statutes of limitation.

An AI-generated answer may provide a generalized explanation while overlooking a deadline that applies to your particular circumstances. By the time an employee consults counsel, it may be too late to preserve the claim. No chatbot will be responsible for that mistake.

The Bottom Line

The recent Illinois sanctions decision illustrates an important truth: even trained attorneys cannot blindly trust AI-generated legal research. Courts expect lawyers to verify what AI produces. Employees should hold AI-generated legal advice to the same level of skepticism. We have experimented with AI-generated research and, at least as of now, I can attest that AI gets it wrong far more than it gets it right. That is because the law is nuanced and a chatbot largely cannot understand that level of nuance.

If you believe you have been discriminated against, retaliated against, harassed, underpaid, or wrongfully terminated, ChatGPT should not be the final word on your rights. AI can be helpful. It can be informative. It can even point you in the right direction. But it can also be wrong.

When your job, reputation, and financial future are at stake, relying solely on a chatbot is a gamble you should not take. Before making decisions based on AI-generated legal advice, speak with an experienced employment lawyer who can evaluate the facts, identify the risks, and provide advice tailored to your particular situation.