Published opinion, 7 October 2026 · source · PDF · 5 pages
LaVonne and Michael Washington filed a notice of appeal seeking review of a final order dismissing their complaint entered in lower tribunal case 24-CA-010301, resulting in this proceeding. The 2 Washingtons submitted an initial brief citing eleven cases that this court could not locate. We issued an order that directed them to either provide copies of the eleven cases or show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for submitting a brief that relied on fictitious case law.
2026), and that this court cannot apply that rule retroactively to sanction them. The Washingtons' response fails to adequately explain the inclusion of the fabricated case citations. Their response neither confesses nor denies that the fictitious case citations were the result of using generative artificial intelligence.
It is likely that the inclusion of the fake case citations is the result of generative artificial intelligence. See id. at 919-20 ("None of us can recall an instance when an attorney 3 accidentally submitted a completely fabricated case as a legal authority to a court of law—not until the recent advent of generative artificial intelligence."). Regardless, it is not the source of the fictitious cases that concerns us, but the Washingtons' reliance on them in their brief.
Regardless, it is not the source of the fictitious cases that concerns us, but the Washingtons' reliance on them in their brief. Several courts, including this one, have held that the submission of fictitious cases is sanctionable. See, e.g., Clerk of Ct. & Comptroller for 13th Jud.
3d DCA 2024). Such submissions are sanctionable because they abuse the adversary system, waste the time of the court, and could harm the reputation of judges and parties whose names are falsely invoked in connection with the hallucinated citations. Goya v.
And this court need not retroactively apply rule 2.515(d)(2)(D) to impose sanctions. To specifically address the issue of fictitious case citations generated by generative artificial intelligence tools, the supreme court amended rule 2.515(d)(2) to provide that the signer of a filing certifies the legal authorities identified in the filing "exist and are accurately cited." In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Gen.
6th DCA June 26, 2026) ("[T]he explicit requirements and sanctions authority of the amendments to rule 2.515(d)(2) merely clarify what already fell within the scope of the pre- existing requirements of rule 2.515(d)(2)."). Because a citation to a nonexistent case is not accurate, signing a filing that contains fictitious citations breaches that representation. Under rule 9.410(a), this court has the authority to sanction such a breach without reliance on the amended version of the rule.
1 We note that the Washingtons have other proceedings pending in this court unrelated to the lower tribunal case at issue in this appeal. We caution that further frivolous filings or the submission of fictitious case citations in those cases may result in additional sanctions.