Background
JMOR Properties petitioned for certiorari review after the Palm Beach County circuit court vacated a clerk’s default. On June 30, 2026, the Fourth District dismissed the petition for lack of certiorari jurisdiction and ordered JMOR’s counsel, Barry M. Leff, to show cause why sanctions should not issue.
The court found that the petition was riddled with false citations and unsupported arguments, including a claim that the court had repeatedly granted certiorari review of orders vacating clerk’s defaults. Counsel acknowledged the false citations, said an AI program had produced the initial draft, and asserted that he inadvertently filed that draft rather than his revised version.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth District referred counsel to the Florida Bar for consideration of disciplinary proceedings. It held that submitting the wrong draft did not excuse counsel’s duty to verify the accuracy of citations and legal assertions in a filed document.
The court also explained that its lack of certiorari jurisdiction was settled law: vacating a default before entry of judgment does not create the irreparable harm necessary for certiorari review. Even counsel’s purported revised petition failed to disclose that controlling adverse authority, which the court said demonstrated a failure of competence whether or not counsel intended to mislead the court.
Key Takeaways
- Lawyers remain responsible for verifying every citation and proposition in AI-assisted filings.
- Fictitious authority and inaccurate use of real authority can support sanctions and Bar referral.
- Orders vacating defaults before judgment are not reviewable by certiorari because they do not cause irreparable harm.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that AI use does not lessen an attorney’s professional duties of competence, candor, and citation verification. A claimed drafting or version-control error will not excuse a filing that misstates controlling law or relies on nonexistent cases.