“I Filed the Wrong Draft” is Not a Defense When it Contained Hallucinations

A Florida court issued an order to show cause why an attorney should not be sanctioned for filing “a certiorari petition in this case that is riddled with false citations and arguments, including an unsupported allegation that this Court has ‘repeatedly entertained, and granted, certiorari review of orders vacating clerk’s defaults.”

The attorney’s novel response—that he submitted the wrong draft–was not successful. JMORR Properties, LLC v. Artist Alley Townhomes, LLC, 2026 WL 2328995 (Dist. Ct. Apl. Fla. 4^th Dist. Aug. 12, 2026).

Counsel’s response acknowledges the false citations identified in our order and identifies additional false citations. Counsel accepts responsibility for his deficient filing but alleges that he did not mean to mislead this Court and merely submitted the wrong draft. Counsel explains that his normal process is to have artificial intelligence (“AI”) software research and draft the initial document, and he then verifies every citation and revises the draft. Counsel allegedly did that in this case and removed all the fake and false citations, but while he was making final edits, he inadvertently worked from the wrong version and ended up filing the AI’s initial draft with this Court. Counsel’s response includes a document that counsel alleges is the revised petition that he intended on filing. Counsel claims he is not trying to deflect responsibility and promises to institute corrective measures, namely he will henceforth confirm that he is submitting the correct draft before filing. [emphasis added].

The court wrote: “Counsel’s explanation that he mistakenly submitted the wrong draft of the petition does not excuse the failure to verify the accuracy of all citations in his filing.”  It added: “We note that the revised petition which counsel alleges he intended on filing fails to disclose clearly established law that is contrary to counsel’s argument for certiorari jurisdiction.”  It wrote that any “competent” research, “using AI or otherwise,” should have revealed “abundant” caselaw showing a lack of jurisdiction.

The court explained:  “Despite counsel’s alleged citation checking and revision of the AI’s initial draft, none of the controlling law was cited in the alleged revision. Even if counsel is truthful in his assertion that he was not intentionally trying to mislead this Court, the failure to discover the controlling law shows a violation of the duty of competence.” The attorney was referred to the Florida Bar for disciplinary proceedings.