In Capital Standard, LLC v. U.S. Bank National Association (Fla. 2d DCA Aug. 21, 2026), the Florida Second District Court of Appeal sanctioned an attorney with over 40 years of legal experience following the submission of briefs containing 46 hallucinated legal authorities (31 in the amended initial brief and 15 in the reply brief).
- Types of Misrepresentations: Submissions included entirely fictitious case citations as well as existing precedent misquoted or cited for legal propositions they did not support.
- Failure to Correct: After opposing counsel noted the errors, counsel filed a reply brief containing additional hallucinated citations and failed to respond to a court order to show cause within the required timeframe.
- Sanctions Imposed: The appellate court ordered a $1,500 fine, required counsel to personally cover opposing attorney’s fees related to the defective filings, and referred the attorney to The Florida Bar.
Key Takeaways for Legal Practice
- Verification Over Delegation: Generative AI tools cannot serve as a substitute for primary legal research or professional judgment. Lawyers retain non-delegable ethical duties to read cited authorities and verify all quotations.
- Risk of Real-Case Hallucinations: Distorting real precedent presents a greater professional liability risk than fabricated case names, as it demands extensive judicial and opposing party resources to uncover misquotes and false propositions.
- Heightened Duty of Care: Extensive practice history does not mitigate the obligation to verify AI output. Experienced practitioners must apply established standards of scrutiny to machine-generated work product.
Written with the aid of artificail intelligence.
When one of your cases is in need of a construction expert, estimates, insurance appraisal or umpire services in defect or insurance disputes – please call Advise & Consult, Inc. at 801.641.8304, or email experts@adviseandconsult.net.