Published opinion, 20 March 2026 · source · PDF · 8 pages
Only four of the cited cases both exist and are cited for legal propositions that the cited cases actually represent. Five of the cited cases do not exist. Four of the cited cases are cited fo r legal propositions that the cited cases do not actually represent.
Four of the cited cases are cited fo r legal propositions that the cited cases do not actually represent. Courts across the United States, including Florida’s appellate courts, are currently grappling with an influx of court filings produced by pro se litigants and attorneys alike with the assistance of AI that cite non-existent cases or that cite actual cases for inaccurate legal propositions. See, e.g., Russell v.
Bar 3 -7.18 (rule governing the disposition of inquiries or complaints referred to the Bar by members of the judiciary). All filers in cases before the Sixth District Court of Appeal should take notice: our Court will remain vigilant to ensure that filings signed by pro se litigants and attorneys alike—including filings prepared with or without the assistance of AI — both: (1) do not cite to non-existent cases and (2) do not cite to cases for inaccurate legal propositions. If and when any such erroneous filings are made in a given case before our Court, filers on the opposite side of the case should point out such errors to our Court either in their responsive filings or via motion.