Hallucinated Law: Candor and Competence in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
Appellate advocates around the country recently watched a viral video of a lawyer being questioned during an oral argument at a state supreme court about including AI-generated, hallucinated caselaw in her filings.[1] The lawyer’s response was striking. Rather than acknowledging the error, she sidestepped accountability and stated she would “research that.”[2] The exchange prompted an uncomfortable but increasingly relevant question: When fabricated authority appears in a filing, what do ethical obligations require — not only of the lawyer who submitted it, but of opposing counsel who recognizes it? As the use of artificial intelligence becomes more prevalent in legal practice, that question is no longer hypothetical.
Artificial intelligence is a powerful and useful tool for attorneys when used responsibly. Florida courts routinely recognize that AI can promote efficiency in both time and resources.[3] Its use, however, brings into focus how existing ethical obligations, particularly the duty of candor, apply. As discussed below, Florida courts are increasingly addressing this issue in written opinions and administrative orders.
Florida’s Ethical Framework
The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar impose clear obligations on attorneys advocating before a tribunal.[4] Relevant to this discussion is the duty of candor, which prohibits a lawyer from knowingly making false statements of fact or law or failing to correct such statements.[5] It also requires disclosure of adverse, controlling authority not otherwise brought to the court’s attention.[6] A comment to the rule on the duty of candor explains that “[l]egal argument based on a knowingly false representation of law constitutes dishonesty toward the tribunal.”[7]
Separate from candor, lawyers must report professional misconduct when it raises a substantial question as to another lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness to practice law.[8] Every lawyer is responsible for observing these rules and “should also aid in securing their observance by other lawyers.”[9]
The rules governing competence further underscore these obligations in the context of emerging technology. In 2024, the Florida Supreme Court amended a comment to Rul. Reg. Fla. Bar 4-1.1 to include express guidance that lawyers keep up to date on the benefits and risks of using technology, “including generative artificial intelligence.”[10] This guidance does not impose new duties specific to AI, but it reflects an expectation that lawyers understand both the capabilities and limitations of those tools before relying on them in practice.
Florida holds the distinction of being the first state to have its state bar issue an ethics opinion about the use of AI.[11] In that opinion, the Bar reminded lawyers that they may use AI technology in their practices but only to the extent the lawyer does so in compliance with all existing ethical obligations, including the duties of candor and competence.[12] Of particular significance is the direction for lawyers to verify the thoroughness and accuracy of all research or drafting produced by AI.[13]
These principles are no longer confined to abstract ethical guidance, however. Florida courts have begun applying them in concrete ways through written opinions, sanctions, and administrative orders addressing the use (and misuse) of AI in legal filings. Those developments provide useful insight into how the duty of candor and related ethical obligations operate in practice.
Florida Courts Respond to AI in Legal Filings
Florida courts are confronting artificial intelligence head on as its use in legal practice has increased significantly in recent years.
At the trial level, at least three judicial circuits have issued administrative orders directed to the use of generative AI in the preparation of any legal filing in those circuits.[14] The order from the 11th Circuit specifically cites the duty of candor and prohibits the submission of hallucinated caselaw or other legal authority.[15] Under all three orders, lawyers must disclose on the face of every filing when AI has been used and must certify that any content derived from AI has been independently reviewed for accuracy.[16] However, in the 11th Circuit, disclosure is not required when AI is used for routine research, cite-checking, or grammar, spelling, and clarity edits.[17] Failing to comply with these administrative orders may result in sanctions, including monetary fines, contempt proceedings, or referral to The Florida Bar.[18]
The district courts of appeal have likewise cautioned lawyers and self-represented litigants against the use of unverified AI-generated content in appellate briefs,[19] and in some instances have imposed sanctions when filings have included inaccurate or fabricated authority.[20] Among these decisions, Russell v. Mells, 426 So. 3d 913 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025), stands out for its detailed examination of the issue.
There, the Second District Court of Appeal issued a show cause order to the appellee’s lawyer after identifying multiple citation errors in an answer brief, including fabricated caselaw and misquoted authorities.[21] In response, counsel acknowledged relying on “computer generated searches” and failing to fully verify the results, but asserted she did not intend to mislead the court.[22] The court accepted counsel’s representation about her intent, but emphasized that a lack of intent to mislead did not excuse the submission of inaccurate legal authorities.[23] In a pointed discussion, the Second District explained that the ethical duties of competence and candor require lawyers to independently verify the authorities they cite, and that those obligations are not diminished when errors originate from generative AI.[24] The Second District further underscored that by signing a filing, a lawyer certifies he or she has read the document and it is supported by “good grounds.”[25] Therefore, the court reasoned that the submission of hallucinated caselaw, intentional or not, constituted a failure to meet the lawyer’s ethical obligations and warranted referral to The Florida Bar.[26]
Other Florida appellate courts have echoed similar concerns as more litigants and lawyers submit briefs containing fictitious caselaw, characterizing it as “an abuse of the adversary system.”[27] In addition to the ethical implications, courts have also cited the practical consequences of using inaccurate legal authorities such as the unnecessary expenditure of time and resources[28] and reputational harm.[29]
Calling it Out: Must Opposing Counsel Speak Up?
More recently, courts have begun to address not only the filing attorney’s obligations, but also the role of opposing counsel. In Hessert v. Hessert, 2026 WL 785016, No. 6D2026-0121 (Fla. 6th DCA Mar. 20, 2026), the Sixth District Court of Appeal addressed the increasing prevalence of inaccurate or fabricated case citations, whether generated by AI or otherwise, and issued a broader warning to litigants and counsel.[30]
The Sixth District made clear that it will “remain vigilant” in reviewing filings to ensure that cited authorities both exist and support the propositions for which they are offered.[31] But the court did not stop there. It went on to state: “If and when...erroneous filings are made in a given case before our [c]ourt, filers on the opposite side of the case should point out such errors to our [c]ourt either in their responsive filings or via motion.”[32] That directive was accompanied by an equally important reminder that the obligation to verify legal authorities rests with the filing lawyer and cannot be delegated to artificial intelligence.[33]
The Sixth District’s position in Hessert reflects an emerging discussion about the role of opposing counsel. Careful review of an adversary’s brief — including verifying the cited authorities — is not new; it has long been a routine part of effective appellate advocacy.[34] What is evolving is whether, in the context of AI-generated errors, that practice also carries ethical significance.[35] As courts confront an increase in fabricated or misleading citations, the line between sound advocacy and professional obligation is receiving increased attention.
Courts in other jurisdictions have already begun to attach consequences to a failure to identify opposing counsel’s errors. In Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P., 336 Cal. Rptr. 3d 897 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025), a lawyer was sanctioned and ordered to pay a $10,000 fee for filing a brief that contained numerous fabricated citations and statements of law.[36] However, the California appellate court declined to award attorneys’ fees for the opposing counsel who did not alert the court to the hallucinated authorities.[37] Although not framed as an independent ethical violation, the court treated counsel’s silence as a relevant consideration in denying relief.[38]
Taken together, Hessert and Noland suggest that as courts continue to confront the realities of AI-assisted advocacy, they may increasingly look to all counsel, not just the filing lawyer, to identify its use.[39] That expectation is consistent with the core duties of candor and competence, which emphasize accuracy and accountability in representations made to tribunals.[40]
Conclusion
Artificial intelligence is rapidly becoming a part of everyday legal practice. The benefits of the proper use of AI are clear, but the consequences of its misuse can be dire. Lawyers remain responsible for the accuracy of the law they present to a tribunal, regardless of how it is generated. But in the era of “hallucinated law,” accuracy in appellate advocacy is increasingly understood as a shared responsibility.
[1] See Oral Argument at 32:46-34:16, S26A0459 Payne v. The State, Sup. Ct. of Ga. (Mar. 18, 2026), https://www.gasupreme.us/oral-arguments-march-18-2026/#:~:text=Oral%20Arguments%20%E2%80%93%20March%2018%2C%202026.
[2] Id. at 34:05.
[3] See, e.g., Francois v. Vive Fin., LLC, 2026 WL 758289, No. 4D2025-2088, at *1 (Fla. 4th DCA Mar. 18, 2026) (“Artificial intelligence may assist in research and drafting.”); Clerk of Ct. & Comptroller for 13th Jud. Cir. v. Rangel, 427 So. 3d 1069, 1072 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025) (“Efficiency, expertise, and cost savings are some of the reasons why attorneys delegate work and use technological tools such as generative artificial intelligence in representing their clients.”).
[4] See Rul. Reg. Fla. Bar 4-3.
[5] Rul. Reg. Fla. Bar 4-3.3(a)(1).
[6] Rul. Reg. Fla. Bar 4-3.3(a)(3).
[7] Rul. Reg. Fla. Bar 4-3.3 cmt. (misleading legal argument).
[8] Rul. Reg. Fla. Bar 4-8.3(a).
[9] Rul. Reg. Fla. Bar Ch. 4 pmble.
[10] In re Amends. to Rules Regulating the Fla. Bar — Chapter 4, 393 So. 3d 137, 139 (Fla. 2024).
[11] See Jim Ash, New Florida Bar Guide Helps Lawyers Incorporate AI Responsibly in Their Work, Fla. Bar News, Jan. 8, 2025, available at https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-news/new-florida-bar-guide-helps-lawyers-incorporate-ai-responsibly-in-their-work/ (“Florida Bar members now have a comprehensive guide for incorporating generative AI into a legal practice while being mindful of the ethical implications.. . . [T]he first of their kind.”).
[12] Fla. Bar Ethics Op. 24-1, 7 (Jan. 19, 2024), available at https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/opinion-24-1/.
[13] Id. at 4.
[14] Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings, Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. Admin. Order No. 2026-03-Gen. (Amend. 1) (Jan. 27, 2026), available at https://www.17th.flcourts.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/AO2026-03-GEN-Amendment-1-Use-of-AI-in-Court-Filings.pdf; Re: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings by Attorneys and Self-Represented Litigants; Disclosure of Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence, Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. Admin. Order No. 26-15 (May 19, 2026), available at https://api.jud11.flcourts.org/api/adminorders/35907/file; In Re: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings, Fla. 19th. Cir. Ct. Admin. Order No. 2025-10 (Dec. 17, 2025), available at https://www.circuit19.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/2025-10.pdf.
[15] Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. Admin. Order No. 26-15 at ¶¶4, 8-9.
[16] Id. at ¶¶6-7; Fla. 19th. Cir. Ct. Admin. Order No. 2025-10 at ¶¶1-2; Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. Admin. Order No. 2026-03-Gen. (Amend. 1) at ¶5.
[17] Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. Admin. Order No. 26-15 at ¶6.
[18] Fla. 19th. Cir. Ct. Admin. Order No. 2025-10 at ¶4; Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. Admin. Order No. 26-15 at ¶10; Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. Admin. Order No. 2026-03-Gen. (Amend. 1) at ¶7.
[19] See, e.g., Rangel, 427 So. 3d at 1072 (“[T]his case is another reminder that an attorney who [uses AI] remains responsible for the work product that is generated.”); Takefman v. Pickleball Club, LLC, 418 So. 3d 826, 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (addressing “an issue of growing concern — the proliferation of fake or hallucinated case citations in court filings”); Friend v. Serpa, 425 So. 3d 51, 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) (explaining that “phantom authority cannot assist any litigant and must be expressly disregarded by [the] court”); Hessert v. Hessert, 2026 WL 785016, No. 6D2026-0121, at *1 (Fla. 6th DCA Mar. 20, 2026) (recognizing that “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”).
[20] See Rangel, 427 So. 3d at 1071 (referring lawyer to The Florida Bar); Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 399 So. 3d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (dismissing self-represented litigant’s appeal and barring him from future pro se filings); see also Roussell v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 2026 WL 681054, No. 4D2025-1309, at *1 (Fla. 4th DCA Mar. 11, 2026) (declining to issue sanctions but recognizing ability to do so for failure to comply with Fla. R. App. P. 9.210(c)).
[21] Russell, 426 So. 3d at 918-19.
[22] Id. at 919.
[23] Id. at 919-20.
[24] See id. at 920-21.
[25] Id. at 920 (citing Fla. Rul. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.515(d)).
[26] See id. at 920-21 (explaining that reliance on AI without verification reflects a “fundamental…abdicat[ion]” of a lawyer’s duties to the court and his or her clients).
[27] Goya v. Hayashida, 418 So. 3d 652, 655 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) (quoting Park v. Kim, 91 F.4th 610, 615 (2d Cir. 2024)).
[28] See id. at 655-56; Takefman, 418 So. 3d at 827.
[29] See Goya, 418 So. 3d at 655-56.
[30] Hessert, 2026 WL 785016 at **1-2.
[31] Id. at *2.
[32] Id.
[33] See id.
[34] See, e.g., Rangel, 427 So. 3d at 1070 (issuing show cause order after appellant’s counsel pointed out hallucinated caselaw in appellee’s answer brief); Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So. 2d 561, 571 (Fla. 2005) (“[Appellate courts] depend on counsel to accurately state both the facts and the applicable law.... [A]ppellate counsel...has an independent ethical obligation to present both the facts and the applicable law accurately and forthrightly.”).
[35] See generally, e.g., Hessert, 2026 WL 785016; Fla. Bar Prof’l Ethics Comm., Op. 24-1, at 1 (2024) (“Lawyers remain responsible for their work product and professional judgment and must develop policies and practices to verify that the use of generative AI is consistent with the lawyer’s ethical obligations.”).
[36] Noland, 336 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 904, 915.
[37] Id. at 915 (noting that while a fee award may be appropriate “in some cases, in the present case respondents did not alert the court to the fabricated citations and appear to have become aware of the issue only when the court issued its order to show cause”).
[38] See id.
[39] See Hessert, 2026 WL 785016 at *2; Noland, 336 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 915.
[40] See Ruls. Reg. Fla. Bar 4-1.1, 4-3.3(a).
Amber S. Nunnally
Amber S. Nunnally is a partner in the Tallahassee office of Shutts & Bowen, where she is a member of the firm’s appellate practice group. She regularly represents businesses and state agencies in complex matters of law and public policy, particularly in the areas of constitutional and administrative law. With 25 years of professional experience, Nunnally has worked in all three branches of Florida state government.
Sarah A. Kilpatrick
Sarah A. Kilpatrick graduated from the Florida State University College of Law in May of 2026. During law school, she worked for the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the Florida House of Representatives, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, and Shutts & Bowen. Kilpatrick now lives and works in Washington, D.C.
This column is submitted on behalf of the Appellate Practice Section, Elaine Walter, chair, and Benjamin Paley, Matthew Cavender, Huiping (Lily) Liu, Nick McNamara, Sydney D’Angelo, Darren M. Goldman, and Brian C. Tackenberg, editors.
Legal Disclaimer:
EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.
