June 1, 2026 (in 3 days): New York: 22 NYCRR Part 161 takes effect, system-wide AI policy for all UCS courts

Dubinin v. Papazian

U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida · S.D. Fla. · Florida bar guidance

Court sanction

Verified April 26, 2026

Citation
Dubinin v. Papazian, No. 25-cv-23877-RAR (S.D. Fla. Nov. 21, 2025)
Decided
November 21, 2025

Summary

Plaintiff's counsel Missiva Tilleli Khacer filed a Response to a Motion to Dismiss containing at least ten instances of non-existent case citations and fabricated quotations attributed to Eleventh Circuit opinions. Khacer admitted she had delegated drafting to New York attorney Nataliya Gavlin (who never sought pro hac vice admission), and Gavlin in turn admitted at the hearing that her legal assistant had used generative AI to draft the brief. Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz II found Khacer's conduct was egregious enough to constitute bad faith, noting her pattern of similar conduct across multiple immigration mandamus cases in the District.

AI tool:
Unspecified generative AI
Sanction amount:
$4,030.90
This case summary is informational only. Verify the underlying opinion or order against the primary source before relying on it in any filing or client matter.

What sanction did the court impose?

Complaint stricken and case dismissed without prejudice. Khacer ordered to pay $4,030.90 in defendant's attorneys' fees (26.5 hours at $152.11/hour) and referred to the Florida Bar and the Court's Ad Hoc Grievance Committee for discipline. Gavlin separately referred to the Florida Bar and Grievance Committee for investigation into her unauthorized practice and conduct in the District.

Why does Dubinin v. Papazian matter for law firms using AI?

Dubinin illustrates the supervisory liability problem at the heart of small-firm AI governance. The signing attorney never touched the AI tool herself; the hallucinations originated two layers down, with a non-admitted out-of-state attorney’s legal assistant. The court was unmoved by that distance, holding Khacer responsible for everything bearing her signature and treating the firm’s informal delegation chain as itself evidence of bad faith. For managing partners, the case is a reminder that Rule 11 attaches to the signature block regardless of who actually drafted the brief, and that referral to the bar follows naturally from a pattern of unverified filings.

Sources

Primary sources

Further reading

Source PDF is a Westlaw printout mirrored from the Damien Charlotin hallucination database. We are working to add the underlying court docket (PACER, CourtListener, or court website) as a second source.