In the Interest of S.M.T. and S.J.T.

What the court wrote

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

Finally, some discussion of appellant’s brief is warranted. As previously mentioned, appellant’s brief is disjointed and difficult to follow. However, that is not the only shortcoming of appellant’s briefing. It is obvious that appellant’s brief was either (1) the result of using artificial intelligence yielding hallucination citations or (2) a deliberate attempt to mislead this court. I prefer to assume the use of AI rather than intentional deception. ... Unfortunately, the brief is far from accurate. On page 8 of Mr. Lavespere’s brief, he states: “As held in In re Marriage of Harrison, 557 S.W.3d 99, 111 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, pet. denied), a trial court’s failure to consider valid objections to a proposed order can constitute reversible error. The court stated that ‘fundamental notions of due process require that parties be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard on issues affecting their rights.’” Although the Marriage of Harrison case exists, the passage that Mr. Lavespere quoted is entirely fabricated. Unfortunately, that is not the only instance of fabricated or hallucinated quotations. ... The problem with fake citations and quotations has become rampant. While courts might ignore hallucination cases and quotations from pro se litigants, we cannot turn a blind eye when lawyers commit the same transgressions. ... Although appellee did not request sanctions, on our own motion we order attorney Lavespere to attend three hours of Continuing Legal Education on the dangers of the use of artificial intelligence in court filings and to certify to this court such attendance and compliance within sixty days of this opinion.

Authorities cited in the passage: In re Marriage of Harrison, 557 S.W.3d 99 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018) · In re Marriage of Swim, 291 S.W.3d 500 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009) · Lenz v. Lenz, 79 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. 2002) · In re A.S., 298 S.W.3d 834 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009) · In re Terminix Intern. Co., L.P., 131 S.W.3d 651 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2004) · In re Bennett, 960 S.W.2d 35 (Tex. 1997)