- Court
- Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal
- Case Number
- 4D2026-0781
- Date Filed
- May 27, 2026
- Judges
- Per Curiam
- Disposition
- Affirmed; sanctions imposed; referral to Florida Bar
Background
Eclectic Synergy, LLC filed a certiorari petition and emergency motion for stay seeking review of the trial court’s denial of a motion to disqualify opposing counsel. The trial court’s two-page explanatory order found no fraud upon the court that would merit disqualification. The petition argued that the court’s order failed to contain sufficient findings to permit appellate review.
After reviewing the petition, the Fourth DCA redesignated the case as a nonfinal appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(E), treated the petition as the initial brief, and summarily affirmed because no preliminary basis for reversal was shown. The court also denied the “emergency” motion for stay and issued an order requiring counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed because the petition appeared AI-generated and raised frivolous arguments, misstated the law, and cited non-existent caselaw.
Holding
The Fourth DCA imposed sanctions and referred counsel to the Florida Bar. The court found that page 5 of the petition cited “Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc. v. Masek, 982 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)” — a case that does not exist in Florida. The citation actually links to Liberty Transportation, LLC v. Banyan Air Services, Inc., which does not support the stated argument.
Counsel responded that the citation was a “transcription error” and “clerical mistake,” claiming he was trying to cite an Ohio appellate decision. The court found this explanation not credible, noting that the Ohio case (1) had been overruled, (2) involved confirmation of an arbitration award, and (3) was wholly irrelevant to the proceeding. The court stated this demonstrated further lack of candor in violation of Rule Regulating Florida Bar 4-3.3(a)(1).
The court also identified other citations that misrepresented the holdings of the cited cases, finding such misleading arguments “just as egregious as citations to non-existent cases.” The court declared: “The submission of fictitious or fabricated case law — whether the product of carelessness, misunderstanding, or reliance on generative artificial-intelligence tools — is sanctionable,” citing Francois v. Vive Financial, LLC (Fla. 4th DCA Mar. 18, 2026) and Goya v. Hayashida, 418 So. 3d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025).
Key Takeaways
- Whether counsel used AI is irrelevant to the need for sanctions when fictitious authority is presented to the court.
- Counsel is responsible for the accuracy of filings and cannot cast blame on a paralegal for inaccurate citations.
- Alleged lack of “bad faith” is irrelevant to the sanctionability of fabricated citations.
- Misrepresenting the holdings of real cases is “just as egregious” as citing non-existent cases.
- The Fourth DCA also found the “emergency” designation frivolous, emphasizing that true emergencies require action within hours, not days or weeks.
Why It Matters
This decision continues the Fourth DCA’s aggressive enforcement against inaccurate legal citations, building on Francois v. Vive Financial and Goya v. Hayashida. The court’s clear statement that the source of fabricated citations is irrelevant — whether from AI tools, sloppy research, or intentional deception — establishes a bright-line rule that practitioners must verify every citation regardless of how it was generated. The referral to the Florida Bar signals that sanctions at the appellate level may be just the beginning of professional consequences for filing documents with fictitious authority. This opinion was cited the same day in Innocent v. Meraki Installers for the companion proposition that fabricated record citations trigger the same duty of referral.