Skip to content

Incident Tracker / United States (state)

Capital Standard, LLC v. U.S. Bank National Association, No. 2D2024-1392 (Fla. 2d DCA)

·Florida Second District Court of Appeal·US-STATEFine

Florida's Second District Court of Appeal affirmed a foreclosure-related declaratory judgment and, in a separate section citing the Charlotin database, fined appellant's counsel USD 1,500, awarded U.S. Bank its appellate fees, and referred him to The Florida Bar for rampant hallucinated citations that persisted after a show-cause order. Counsel may not bill his client for either amount.

Court
Florida Second District Court of Appeal
Date
2026-08-21
Who used the AI
Lawyer
AI tool
generative AI (unspecified)
Conduct
Attorney Kenneth H. Keefe's amended initial brief contained at least 31 instances of hallucinated or misrepresented authority, including a fake quotation attributed to Hart Properties v. Slack, and the problems continued after a January 2026 show-cause order.
Outcome
Fine
Penalty
US$1,500
Regulatory outcome
The Florida Bar: Court referred counsel to The Florida Bar. No disposition on record. (2026-08-21)
Status
Verified against listed sources
Last checked
2026-09-03

What was fabricated or misused

  • Maciejewski v. Holland, 441 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) — cited for ratification and transaction-validity propositions the opinion does not contain
  • Hart Properties, Inc. v. Slack, 159 So. 2d 236, 239 (Fla. 1963) — nonexistent quotation on fundamental error
  • Miami Country Day School v. Bakst, 641 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) — cited for bona-fide purchaser and delay-bar propositions the opinion does not contain
  • Gonzalez v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 95 So. 3d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) — cited as authority on possession presumptions and bona fide purchaser status; the case concerns assignment standing
  • Board of Regents v. Wilson, 365 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) — fake case
  • Forty-six total hallucinations in the amended initial brief and reply brief — the court did not enumerate all forty-six

What the court said

“Capital Standard's subsequent amended initial brief included at least thirty-one instances of Attorney Keefe's citing or quoting existing cases for propositions they do not contain.”
Florida Second District Court of Appeal, p. 4
“Capital Standard's reply brief added another fifteen AI hallucinations, including the fake case Board of Regents v. Wilson, 365 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979);”
Florida Second District Court of Appeal, p. 5
“Rather, it is his use of generative AI without also "ensur[ing] that the legal propositions and authority generated are trustworthy."”
Florida Second District Court of Appeal, p. 15
“In conclusion, we impose on Attorney Keefe a $1,500 fine payable to the clerk of this court within fourteen days; we remand this matter to the trial court to determine the reasonable amount of appellate attorney's fees incurred by U.S. Bank for researching and answering Capital Standard's amended initial brief; and we refer Attorney Keefe to The Florida Bar for further proceedings.”
Florida Second District Court of Appeal, p. 15

Timeline

  1. Court issued a show-cause order identifying forty-six hallucinations.
  2. Court struck the amended initial and reply briefs and directed counsel to notify clients.
  3. Attorney Keefe responded, saying he had used AI as a supplemental research tool.
  4. Florida's signature-rule amendment made existence and accuracy of cited authorities an express filing representation.
  5. Opinion affirmed judgment, imposed $1,500 fine, fee remand and Bar referral.

Why this case matters

Capital Standard shows a state appellate court moving past warnings in Florida AI-citation cases. The opinion cites Rangel, Goya and Gutierrez, then adds a fine, a personal fee award and a Florida Bar referral after counsel missed a show-cause deadline and left forty-six hallucinations in the amended and reply briefs. Unlike Mata v Avianca, the court was not dealing with invented opinions attached to a trial motion, but with appellate merits briefing that the panel said was almost wholly untrustworthy. The opinion also ties the sanction to Florida's June 2026 signature-rule amendment, making cite verification an express certification in future filings.

Practice note

Before filing an appeal brief in Florida, the signer should read each authority and match every proposition to a page or paragraph. A separate table of citation, proposition and source text would have answered the January 8 order. If any authority cannot be verified, the brief should be amended before filing and the client told promptly if a court raises the issue.

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

  • Kid International, LLC v. City National Bank of Florida, No. 4D2025-2599 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)2026-10-07 · District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District · SanctionsIn Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal, counsel for Kid International filed an AI-assisted brief citing a hallucinated case seven times and fabricated quotations from real authorities. The court affirmed on the me…
  • Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P., No. B331918 (Cal. Ct. App.)2025-09-12 · California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District · SanctionsIn the California Court of Appeal, Second District, plaintiff's counsel filed opening and reply briefs in which nearly all quotations were fabricated by generative-AI tools counsel never verified. The court imposed a $1…
  • Washington v. Justice, No. 2D2025-2678 (Fla. 2d DCA 2026)2026-10-07 · District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District · DismissalIn Florida's Second District Court of Appeal, self-represented appellants filed a brief citing eleven cases the court could not find and likely generated by AI. After an unavailing show-cause response and a pattern of f…
  • Scott v. Illinois Human Rights Commission, 2026 IL App (1st) 2514622026-07-28 · Appellate Court of Illinois, First District · FineThe Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, affirmed dismissal of a Starbucks employee's discrimination charge and sanctioned her lawyer USD 15,000 under Supreme Court Rule 375 for ten AI-hallucinated statutory quo…

Cite this record

SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Capital Standard, LLC v. U.S. Bank National Association, No. 2D2024-1392 (Fla. 2d DCA)”, safelegalai.com/tracker/capital-standard-v-us-bank (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.

Report an issue with this record →