Skip to content

Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations

Elilton Alves Gouveia v. Meridian Financial Investments

Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal · State appellate courts · FL · · No. 4D2025-0843 · opinion

Fabricated or misquoted citations

On 2026-03-25, Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal cautioned the self-represented appellant, in prose and a limerick, that future briefs with nonexistent cases may invite sanctions. A self-represented party submitted an appellate brief with fabricated or nonexistent authorities and mischaracterized authorities, including In re Kenney, 2025-0389.

Disposition
The court cautioned the self-represented appellant, in prose and a limerick, that future briefs with nonexistent cases may invite sanctions.
Recorded conduct
The appellate brief used fabricated or nonexistent authorities and mischaracterized authorities, including In re Kenney, 2025-0389, which the court found nonexistent, misquoted, or unsupported. — outcome: warning; actor: litigant in person
Canonical record
Incident tracker entry — verified outcome, regulator disposition and related rules

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

• AI Spotted There once was a litigant pro se, Who let an AI lead the way. It briefed every claim, Cited cases—by name, That vanished by morning’s next day. Limerick on Pro Se Parties Using Artificial Intelligence (on file with the Fourth District Court of Appeal) (generated by ChatGPT 5.2). It appears to us the defendant used a large language model (LLM) 1 to write his briefs. Popular LLMs include OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini, and Microsoft’s Copilot. See In re Kenney, 2025-0389 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/23/25), 422 So. 3d 905, 912 n.5. Technology, specifically artificial intelligence, is a marvel of the age we live in. It is an important and productive tool, but left unchecked for accuracy and legitimacy, it can be a plague upon the judicial system, creating more problems than it solves, and resulting in violation of the rules of appellate procedure. As Judge Forst reminded us: An attempt to persuade a court or oppose an adversary by relying on fake opinions is an abuse of the adversary system [….] Many harms flow from the submission of fake opinions [….] These include wasting the opposing party’s time LLMs “are [artificial intelligence] systems that aim to model language, sometimes using millions or billions of parameters[.]” See LAURIE HARRIS, CONG. RSCH. SERV., IF12426, GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: OVERVIEW, ISSUES,

Authorities cited in the passage: In re Kenney, 2025-0389

compiled by the Cognesio LLP editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-07v0.1.1coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub