Skip to content

Incident Tracker / United States (federal)

Akerlund v. Atlas Air, Inc. (Estate of Caviness v. Atlas Air), No. 24-11033 (11th Cir.)

·US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit·US-FEDRegulatory referral

In a published opinion affirming dismissal of pilots' vaccine-mandate claims, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit condemned attorney Anthony Sabatini for briefs replete with fake and hallucinated citations, including replacement citations that were themselves fabricated, and referred him to the court's Committee on Lawyer Qualifications and Conduct.

Court
US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Date
2026-07-10
Who used the AI
Lawyer
AI tool
Not identified in the record
Conduct
Attorney Anthony F. Sabatini's opening brief in an appeal over airline pilots' vaccine-mandate claims relied on at least eight hallucinated cases. The corrected citations he supplied after the defendants objected were also hallucinated, and the court found he had not been candid with it.
Outcome
Regulatory referral
Penalty
No monetary penalty recorded
Regulatory outcome
Eleventh Circuit Committee on Lawyer Qualifications and Conduct: The Chief Judge referred counsel to the Committee under Addendum Eight, Rule 2(C) of the court's rules. No disposition on record. (2026-07-10)
Status
Verified against listed sources
Last checked
2026-09-03

What was fabricated or misused

  • Doe v. Roe, 638 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) — hallucinated case
  • Spilfogel v. Fox Broadcasting Co., 792 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) — hallucinated case
  • Doe v. University of Miami, 2020 WL 7647634 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 23, 2020) — hallucinated case
  • Jewell v. New York Life Insurance Co., 2018 WL 1792348 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 16, 2018) — hallucinated case
  • Lofton v. Kravitz, 672 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) — hallucinated case
  • Tillery v. ATSI, Inc., 2005 WL 81628 (11th Cir. Jan. 14, 2005) — hallucinated case
  • Koutsouradis v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 427 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) — hallucinated case
  • Weinstein v. City of North Bay Village, 977 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) — hallucinated case
  • Draper v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 22-cv-02985, 2023 WL 3002478 (D. Colo. Apr. 19, 2023) — listed among hallucinated cases
  • Truong v. Waste Pro USA, Inc., 175 So. 3d 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) — withdrawn replacement citation that was also hallucinated
  • Marvin v. Dade County School Board, 2020 WL 603633 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2020) — withdrawn replacement citation that was also hallucinated
  • Morrison v. Palm Beach County School Board, 2018 WL 6727067 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 21, 2018) — withdrawn replacement citation that was also hallucinated
  • Scott v. Eglin Federal Credit Union, 2022 WL 1558341 (N.D. Fla. May 17, 2022) — withdrawn replacement citation that was also hallucinated
  • Hansen v. Florida, 2022 WL 2980744 (M.D. Fla. July 28, 2022) — withdrawn replacement citation that was also hallucinated
  • Palmer v. McDonald’s Corp., 2022 WL 413680 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2022) — withdrawn replacement citation that was also hallucinated
  • Negron v. School Board of Miami-Dade County, 2021 WL 4948181 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2021) — withdrawn replacement citation that was also hallucinated
  • Koutsouradis v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. — appeared in both filings; the reply brief attributed it to a different court

What the court said

“Sabatini’s filings are riddled with citations to nonexistent, “hallucinated” cases.”
US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, slip op. at 11
“His opening brief relies on at least eight such cases, including one purportedly decided by this Court.”
US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, slip op. at 11
“the eight cases Sabatini “withdrew” did not match a single one of the eight hallucinated cases in his opening brief.”
US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, slip op. at 12
“When lawyers rely on AI tools, there is no way to get around the obligation to verify that the software got it right, and that what it got wrong will not end up in court filings.”
US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, slip op. at 13

Timeline

  1. Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of the third amended complaint.
  2. Court identified at least eight hallucinated cases in the opening brief.
  3. Court found the replacement citations in the proposed reply brief were also hallucinated.
  4. Court announced a Chief Judge referral to the Committee on Lawyer Qualifications and Conduct.

Why this case matters

Akerlund is an appellate escalation of the pattern seen in Mata v Avianca. The opinion did not stop at false citations in one filing: the lawyer tried to withdraw a different set of cases, and those replacements were also fake. Paired with Parnell on the same day, it shows the Eleventh Circuit using published merits opinions to police appellate briefing and to send AI-related conduct to its lawyer-qualification committee. The court's language is also direct on competence: outsourcing legal work to AI does not satisfy a lawyer's duty to clients or the court.

Practice note

Appellate counsel should treat every AI-suggested case as unverified until the decision has been opened and read. A correction must match the defective citation being withdrawn; replacing fake authorities with a new list of unchecked cases compounds the problem. The signing lawyer, not a tool or staff member, is responsible for the final brief.

Primary sources for this incident

Related regulation records for this incident

No related regulation record has been linked to this incident yet.

Similar incidents on the record

  • Cartagena v. Dixon; Dixon v. Cartagena, Nos. 1:25-cv-03552 and 1:25-cv-05144 (S.D.N.Y.)2026-07-10 · US District Court for the Southern District of New York (Magistrate Judge Jennifer Willis) · Regulatory referralA magistrate judge of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York struck a filing by attorney Tyrone Blackburn after finding 17 instances of quotation marks around language absent from the cited cases, p…
  • Parnell v. Florida Department of Corrections, No. 25-11166 (11th Cir.)2026-07-10 · US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Regulatory referralOn the same day as Akerlund v. Atlas Air, another panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment against a prison employee and referred his lawyer for discipline after a reply brief…
  • Barteca Holdings LLC v. Tacobarn Newtown LLC, No. 3:26-cv-00250 (D. Conn.)2026-08-04 · US District Court for the District of Connecticut · SanctionsIn a restaurant trade-dress dispute, the US District Court for the District of Connecticut sanctioned defense counsel USD 3,500 and referred him for discipline after a brief polished with Open Law, Claude and ChatGPT mi…
  • Forney v. Township of Cary, North Carolina, No. 5:25-CV-00738-M (E.D.N.C.)2026-08-03 · US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina · Costs orderHaving warned the same lawyer in a prior action, the chief judge of the US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina used inherent authority to order him to pay the Town of Cary's fees for a brief built…

Cite this record

SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Akerlund v. Atlas Air, Inc. (Estate of Caviness v. Atlas Air), No. 24-11033 (11th Cir.)”, safelegalai.com/tracker/akerlund-v-atlas-air (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.

Report an issue with this record →