Published opinion, 10 July 2026 · source · PDF · 14 pages
Sabatini has not been candid with us. Sabatini filed multiple briefs replete with fake and hallucinated citations. Even after being warned.
The plaintiffs’ counsel Anthony F. Sabatini’s filings are riddled with citations to nonexistent, “hallucinated” cases. His opening brief relies on at least eight such cases, including one purportedly decided by this Court.
2d 703 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Draper USCA11 Case: 24-11033 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/10/2026 Page: 11 of 14 12 Opinion of the Court 24-11033 acknowledged in his (untimely) proposed reply brief that those citations were “erroneous or unverifiable,” and sought to withdraw his reliance on eight listed cases.6 At this point, things go from bad to worse: the eight cases Sabatini “withdrew” did not match a single one of the eight hallucinated cases in his opening brief. And not only were they not the right cases — all eight were also hallucinated.
And not only were they not the right cases — all eight were also hallucinated. We are far from the first court to see lawyers uncritically rely on artificial intelligence software and submit briefs citing nonexistent cases. See Chief Justice John G.
This tendency presents a particular USCA11 Case: 24-11033 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/10/2026 Page: 13 of 14 14 Opinion of the Court 24-11033 on briefs filled with hallucinated citations — not once but twice — Sabatini violated his professional obligations, both to his clients and to this Court.