Courts on AI / Self-represented litigants using AI
Mathis v. Mathis
Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal · State appellate courts · FL · · No. 4D2025-2986 · opinion
The Florida appellate court notes that a self-represented appellee cited two nonexistent cases. Without imposing sanctions, it disregards the phantom authority and reiterates that attorneys and pro se litigants remain responsible for verifying AI-assisted filings.
- Disposition
- The court reversed and remanded a child-support order while disregarding phantom authorities in a pro se brief.
What the court wrote
Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.
In his answer brief, the husband cites two cases which do not exist. As we recently explained: Such phantom authority cannot assist any litigant and must be expressly disregarded by this court. Attorneys and those, like appellee, who proceed pro se are responsible for the content of their submissions to the court. Those who use artificial intelligence to assist in these submissions must ensure their accuracy.
Authorities cited in the passage: Friend v. Serpa, 425 So. 3d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025)
compiled by the Cognesio LLP editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-07v0.1.1coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub
Hugging Face