Published opinion, 3 April 2026 · source · PDF · 6 pages
3.130(5.3) (2022). That Howe’s briefs cited real legal authorities —as opposed to “hallucinations” featuring fictitious cases—does not absolve him. See Sanders v.
Cl. 163, 169 & n.8 (2025) (collecting cases with invented authorities). Howe’s failure to verify the artificial-intelligence output still resulted in the submission of false quotations and misleading legal arguments to this Court.