Published opinion, 27 May 2026 · source · PDF · 6 pages
9.315(a). We denied the “emergency” motion for stay,1 and issued an order requiring counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed because the petition appears AI-generated and raises frivolous arguments, misstates the law, and cites non-existent caselaw. Fla.
The false citation was allegedly a “transcription error” and “clerical mistake.” The response states: During multi-jurisdictional research (to find exact match not found in Florida), the Ohio decision was inadvertently assigned the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal – thereby making the citation a clear transcription error during final compilation. The response argues that “the citation error was an inadvertent mismatch of a real decision, not a fabrication.” The Ohio decision that counsel alleges he was trying to cite has been overruled. Citigroup Glob.
In any event, whether counsel used AI makes no difference to the need for sanctions. The Masek case does not exist in Florida and clearly does not stand for the proposition cited in the petition. Certiorari is appropriate where the proceedings themselves are compromised.
These types of misleading arguments cause reviewing courts and opposing parties to waste time reading through cases trying to discern whether there is any support for the stated proposition. In this way, this misconduct may be even more harmful than an easily identifiable citation to a non-existent case. 4 As we observed in our order to show cause, the petition misrepresents the holdings of several other cases.
4 As we observed in our order to show cause, the petition misrepresents the holdings of several other cases. Such misleading arguments are just as egregious as citations to non-existent cases. Clerk of Court & Comptroller for 13th Jud.
2d DCA 2025) (sanctioning counsel for filing a brief that, among other things, “misstated court holdings”). An attorney is subject to sanctions for filings that contain fictitious authority or “cite actual cases for inaccurate legal propositions.” Hessert v. Hessert, 51 Fla.
Id. “The submission of fictitious or fabricated case law—whether the product of carelessness, misunderstanding, or reliance on generative artificial-intelligence tools—is sanctionable.” Francois v. Vive Fin., LLC, 51 Fla.