Incident Tracker / United States (state)
Lisandrillo v. Palozzi, No. 4D2026-2262 (Fla. 4th DCA)
·District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District·US-STATEPending
In Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal, petitioner's counsel Jaclyn R. Soroka filed an emergency writ petition and related filings the court suspected contained AI-generated components, including convoluted false arguments but no fake citations. The court denied relief and ordered counsel to show cause within ten days why sanctions, including Florida Bar referral, should not issue.
- Court
- District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
- Date
- 2026-09-16
- Who used the AI
- Lawyer
- AI tool
- Not identified in the record
- Conduct
- Petitioner's counsel Jaclyn R. Soroka of Betras Kopp, LLC, Lakewood Ranch, filed an emergency writ petition and related filings that the Fourth District said appeared to contain AI-generated components. The court identified convoluted, false and frivolous arguments, including an automatic-stay argument it described as often seen in AI hallucinations, while noting the case did not involve fake citations.
- Outcome
- Pending
- Penalty
- No monetary penalty recorded
- Regulatory outcome
- No separate regulatory disposition recorded
- Status
- Verified against listed sources
- Last checked
- 2026-09-16
What the court said
“We suspect that counsel’s filings contain AI-generated components.”
“The AI slop problem we address here has nothing to do with hallucinated law or false legal citations.”
“The filings contain indicia of non-human authorship.”
“Within ten (10) days of this opinion, petitioner’s counsel, Jaclyn R. Soroka, shall file a response and show cause—without the use of AI—why sanctions, such as referral to the Florida Bar for consideration of disciplinary proceedings, should not be imposed for submitting frivolous filings to this Court.”
Primary sources for this incident
Related regulation records for this incident
No related regulation record has been linked to this incident yet.
Read our full analysis of this case →
Similar incidents on the record
- State ex rel. Schnell v. Richardson, No. ED114731 (Mo. Ct. App.)2026-09-08 · Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District · SanctionsIn the Missouri Court of Appeals, relator's counsel Jenna Rohr Conley admitted using generative AI to research a mandamus petition and failing to verify two cases that did not exist. The court denied the writ and impose…
- Douglas v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., No. 24-CV-1099 (D.C. Ct. App.)2026-09-03 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Regulatory referralIn the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Deutsche Bank's appellee brief cited four nonexistent authorities after counsel used Google's generative AI search tool without verification. The court struck the brief, ref…
- Kiser v. DeSimone Auto Group, No. 2428 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. Ct.)2026-08-27 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · WarningIn Pennsylvania, counsel for Paige and Ty Kiser cited a non-existent Superior Court decision, Com. v. Reid, for an appellate issue in a consumer dispute. The Superior Court called the authority counterfeit, suggested ch…
- Benjamin v. State, No. 2189 Sept. Term 2024 (Md. App. Ct.)2026-08-25 · Appellate Court of Maryland · WarningIn Maryland, appellate counsel filed a criminal brief with multiple inaccurate citations. The Appellate Court compared the problem to Mezu, said fake AI-generated cases are improper, accepted counsel's corrective effort…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Lisandrillo v. Palozzi, No. 4D2026-2262 (Fla. 4th DCA)”, safelegalai.com/tracker/lisandrillo-v-palozzi (accessed 2026-09-16). Data: CC BY 4.0.