A Florida-based lawyer has been officially sanctioned for, among other things, citing non-existent AI-generated cases in a legal pleading. This case raises serious questions about the ethical implications of AI use in legal practice. The lawyer’s actions, which have been deemed a violation of professional conduct, underscore the urgent need for lawyers to verify legal cases produced by AI tools. In addition to citing non-existent cases derived from AI, the lawyer’s other conduct in the case clearly contributed to the court’s use of sanctions and severity.

The attorney filed a complaint and notice of removal in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida for breach of contract filed in state circuit court. The defendant filed a notice of non-compliance and requested that plaintiff’s counsel file all papers docketed in state court. The federal court then issued an order to show cause noting deficiencies in the plaintiff’s filings and ordered him to file a voluntary notice of remand or a supplemental notice of removal showing cause for jurisdiction. The plaintiff’s attorney then filed an amended supplementary removal restating the same grounds previously deemed insufficient by the court. Next, the defendant filed a motion to remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, seeking attorney fees and costs, plus an order to show cause for vexatious and dilatory tactics. The court remanded the case to state court and referred plaintiff’s counsel to the Grievance Committee. Plaintiff’s counsel ignored the court’s order and filed an amended complaint. The Magistrate Judge referred plaintiff’s counsel to the Grievance Committee for the M.D. of Florida, Fort Myers Division (“Committee”) to investigate whether his conduct in Clark Pear LLC. v MVP Realty Associates LLC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00503-JLB-NPM, fell short of professional and ethical norms. Pursuant to the Referral Order and a local rule for the M.D. of Florida, the Committee investigated the attorney’s conduct and filings. 

Addressing the problematic case citations in plaintiff’s counsel’s Amended Supplementary Removal, the Committee found that the attorney included inaccurate citations and fabricated authorities in his filings. He admitted to using “Westlaw and FastCase and may have used artificial intelligence to draft the filing(s) but was not able to check the excerpts and citations.” At issue were numerous documents that were filed with citations that appeared to be illegitimate or the holdings that were conveyed were not the actual holdings of the case. A total of 26 problematic case citations were cited in four separate pleadings. These citations either did not match the name of the case, the holdings of the cases were misrepresented, or after using the traditional legal research platforms and Google, the cases could not be found. A cursory review of the pleadings filed by the attorney, demonstrated that he cited fabricated cases and used the fabricated cases to bolster his client’s position, persuade the tribunal, and gain an advantage over the defendant.

The Committee acknowledged that artificial intelligence is a new legal tool, but “it can never take [the] place of an attorney’s responsibility to conduct reasonable diligence and provide accurate legal authority to the Court that supports a valid legal argument.” The Committee found probable cause that the attorney misrepresented legal authority to the Court. Moreover, after trying to find his cited cases through searches on LexisNexis, Westlaw and the internet, the Committee found that “some of his legal authorities were completely fabricated.” The Committee further found that the attorney knowingly disobeyed his obligations under the rules of the Court by consistently ignoring the Local Rules, Orders by the Court to Show Cause, and Court directions. Finally, the Committee determined his conduct violated Florida’s Rules of Professional Conduct. His conduct included refusing to confer with counsel, yelling and hanging up on opposing counsel and failing to provide any response to opposing counsel’s request for copies of the legal authority he cited in his pleadings. 

In sum, the Committee found the attorney violated the following Rules:

• Rule 4-1.3 (Diligence) by failing to act with reasonable diligence by including inaccurate authorities and relying on artificial intelligence without verifying citations. 
• Rules 4-3.3(a)(3) (Candor Toward the Tribunal) and 4-8.4 (Misconduct) by making misrepresentations to the Court by citing inaccurate legal authority and fabricating authorities. 
• Rule 4-3.4 (Standards of Conduct) by knowingly disobeying court rules and orders by repeatedly ignoring local rules and court directions. 
• Florida’s Rules of Professional Conduct by his unprofessional behavior, including yelling, hanging up on opposing counsel, and filing baseless accusations, caused undue delay and harm to both parties. 

The Court adopted the Committee’s findings and found that the attorney’s behavior violated Florida Bar Rules 4-1.3, 4-3.3(a)(3), 4-8.4(c), and 4-3.4(c), and the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct. The Court imposed the following sanctions:

• The attorney was suspended from the Bar of the U.S. District Court for the M.D. of Florida for a period of one (1) year. 
• The attorney is prohibited from taking on new cases in the U.S. District Court for the M.D. of Florida, until he is reinstated in the Bar of the M.D. of Florida pursuant to the Reinstatement Conditions; 
• The Reinstatement Conditions are listed below and must be completed before the attorney is permitted to petition to the Bar of the U.S. District Court for the M.D. of Florida for reinstatement:

A.  During the period of suspension, the attorney must:

1. 1. 1. Attend and complete The Florida Bar’s Professionalism Workshop;
      2. Attend and complete all aspects of a Law Practice Management CLE;
      3. Attend and complete all aspects of the Practicing with Professionalism CLE; and
      4. Receive counseling through the Florida Lawyer Assistance Program.

B.  Pay all outstanding monetary sanctions, fees, and costs levied against him, in any federal, state, or disciplinary actions;

C.  Complete all remediation ordered by The Florida Bar, if any;

D.  Complete all remediation ordered by any court, including reporting of any sanctions orders levied by any court to the appropriate parties;

E.  Re-read the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct and the Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the M.D. of Florida; and

F.  Report to the Court the completion of all these requirements before the date marking the end of the suspension period.

The Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct has corresponding ethical and professional obligations for attorney’s, e.g. 19-301.3 (Diligence), 19-303.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 19-308.4 (Misconduct), 19-303.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions), 19-202.4 (Fairness To Opposing Party And Attorney). The sanctions imposed on this lawyer were as a result citing fabricated cases from AI in addition to other unprofessional conduct. Yet, it serves as a caveat to all lawyers that “hallucinated,” or “fabricated cases” produced by AI, and blindly inserted into legal pleadings will not be tolerated by the courts.  

For further reading on this issue one may want to read, “Yet Again! Another Attorney Cites Fake AI Cases,” MSBA Blog, March 12, 2024, or “Massachusetts Lawyer Sanctioned for AI-Generated Fictitious Cases,” MSBA Blog, March 4, 2024.