In the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, U.S. Magistrate Judge William Matthewman imposed sanctions on two attorneys for submitting a fabricated AI-generated case citation in a supplemental proceeding. A copy of the May 20, 2025 order can be found here.
Pro hac vice counsel Timothy R. Lord and local counsel Joel A. Bello filed a response containing a citation to “Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v. J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, 73 A.3d 167, 174–75 (Del. 2013)”—a completely non-existent “hallucinated” case generated by artificial intelligence.
Plaintiff’s counsel identified the fake citation, prompting the attorneys to withdraw it two weeks later. Both attorneys admitted their error: Lord acknowledged using AI for legal research without verification, while Bello failed to check the citations before filing.
The court found violations of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, local rules, and Florida Bar ethical requirements.
Judge Matthewman imposed graduated sanctions: Lord must pay $1,000 and Bello $500 to the court registry, both attorneys are jointly liable for opposing counsel’s fees and costs, and both must complete AI ethics continuing legal education within 30 days.
The court emphasized that while AI use isn’t inherently problematic, attorneys cannot delegate their obligation to verify accuracy and must “evaluate, elucidate, and advocate—not hallucinate.”
The submission of AI-hallucinated case law to Florida courts can violate several key Florida Bar rules, including Rule 4-3.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions), Rule 4-3.3 (Candor Toward Client and Court), Rule 4-3.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel), and Rule 4-8.4 (Professional Responsibility in General), the last of which broadly prohibits conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, as well as conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
While ethically employed AI can help attorneys work smarter rather than harder, practitioners adopting these tools cannot delegate legal reasoning, good judgment and proper diligence to chatbots and similar applications.
Potential consequences include disciplinary action, monetary sanctions, case dismissal, and damage to professional reputation.
David’s Dicta: Dunn Law, P.A. is local counsel to the Plaintiff in this case.