Published opinion, 24 April 2026 · source · PDF · 54 pages
Perry Hall, counsel for Laurie and Mark, filed briefs in this appeal that contain numerous invalid, inaccurate, and/or irrelevant citations to legal authorities. They appear to be artificial-intelligence ("AI") "hallucinations," i.e., fake authorities created by an AI system. Because those briefs are grossly deficient under the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss the appeal.
II. Hall's Extensive Use of Nonexistent or Misquoted Authorities As stated earlier, Hall, counsel for the plaintiffs, filed briefs in this appeal that contain an astounding number of invalid, inaccurate, and SC-2025-0106 8 irrelevant citations to legal author ities. That egregious conduct has monopolized an inordinate amount of this Court's resources and has caused both wasted time and wasted costs to Bruce.
That egregious conduct has monopolized an inordinate amount of this Court's resources and has caused both wasted time and wasted costs to Bruce. We quote excerpts from Bruce's brief to demonstrate Ha ll's extensive use of nonexistent or misquoted authorities in the plaintiffs' opening brief and to demonstrate the time and effort expended by Bruce in responding to Hall's fabricated authorities. We will also detail Hall's use of numerous nonexistent or misquoted authorities in the plainti ffs' reply brief to demonstrate the significant amount of time expended by this Court in reviewing Hall's fabrications.
A. Hall's Use of Nonexistent or Misq uoted Authorities in the Plaintiffs' Opening Brief As Bruce correctly points out in his brief on appeal: "Undeterred, Appellants continue to attempt to distinguish their claims of undue influence and lack of capacity from 'contests' otherwise time-barred by Ala. Code § 19-3B-604(a).
1992)) ('We have unequivocally stated that it is not the function of this Court to do a party's legal rese arch or to make and address legal arguments for a party bas ed on undelineated general propositions not supported by sufficient authority or argument')." Bruce's brief at 17-20 (footnotes omitted). Further, Bruce points out: "Not only have Appellants failed to provide the requisite elements for fraudulent concea lment, but they have again resorted to providing this Co urt erroneous legal support for their argument, ranging from mi squoted cases to completely fictitious cases. "Appellants first cite Ex pa rte Seabol, 782 So.
Ann. 3/603), but the quotation attributed to this case is e rroneous and the quoted language does not exist on the cited pa g e o r a n y w h e r e e l s e i n t h e opinion. Appellants thereafter quote McGowan v.
24). Again, the quoted language does not exist anywhere in the opinion, and even if it did, there was not duty to disclose owed by Bruce to Appellants under Betty's revocable trust. 760 Ill.
2d 409. SC-2025-0106 12 "In addition to again providin g this Court erroneous, if not fabricated, quotations from real cases, Appellants additionally continue their prac tice of providing apparently fictitious cases in order to support their arguments, including 'Gilbert v. Gilbert, 953 So.