Gouldy v. Chiasson
District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District · Fla. 4th DCA · Florida bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se appellant's fee-appeal brief cited a nonexistent case and fabricated quotations from real Florida decisions, after two earlier warnings about frivolous filings.
Consequence
Affirmed; after a show-cause order, the court barred her pro se filings: the Clerk accepts her papers only if a Florida Bar member signs and certifies a good faith basis.
Lesson
Here, fabricated quotations plus prior warnings led the court to end the appellant's ability to file pro se in that court.
Verified September 29, 2026
- Citation
- Gouldy v. Chiasson, No. 4D2025-1289 (Fla. 4th DCA July 22, 2026) (Gross, J.); order imposing sanctions (Fla. 4th DCA Aug. 12, 2026)
- Decided
- July 22, 2026
Summary
Rose Lannquist Gouldy, appearing pro se, appealed a Palm Beach County order setting $65,662.23 in appellate attorney's fees and costs for attorney Timothy M. Chiasson, whom she had sued over his representation of opposing parties in a related probate matter; the Fourth District had earlier affirmed judgment for Chiasson and his entitlement to fees. The court described her initial brief, which raised fifteen issues, as containing "frivolous arguments, misrepresentations of the record, a phantom case, and fake quotes from actual cases." It found she "quotes a nonexistent case, Barton v. McGovern, 302 So. 3d 1042 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)," noting that a real Barton v. McGovern exists at 504 So. 2d 457 but does not contain the quotation; that she "cites a fake quote from Stockman v. Downs, 573 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 1991)"; and that she "also cites several fabricated quotes from Florida cases" on fees for pro se attorney litigants. In its conclusion the court observed that "it appears that many pro se litigants, in both county and circuit courts, are using artificial intelligence platforms to generate appellate briefs and motions," and that many such submissions "contain phantom authority, misstatements of the record, and fabricated quotations." Gouldy had been warned twice against frivolous filings.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the opinion places the brief within a trend in which "it appears that many pro se litigants" are using AI platforms, and the show-cause order calls one citation "hallucinated"; neither finds that Gouldy used AI or names a tool)
- Sanction amount:
- Non-monetary: by order of Aug. 12, 2026, the Clerk is directed to no longer accept any paper filed by the appellant unless reviewed and signed by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar who certifies a good faith basis for each claim
What sanction did the court impose?
In an opinion by Judge Gross (May and Levine, JJ., concurring), the court affirmed in all respects and, by separate order the same day, directed Gouldy to show cause within ten days why the court "should not impose the sanction of no longer accepting her pro se filings." That order stated that her brief contained "a fabricated or 'hallucinated' reference to a non-existent legal authority, and fabricated quotations from actual legal decisions," and cited Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a). The opinion stated that "[a] brief that blatantly and repeatedly includes fabricated quotations from Florida case law meets the standard of a frivolous or bad faith filing." Gouldy filed a response. On August 12, 2026, the court ruled: "Having considered appellant's response, we determine that sanctions are appropriate." For the reasons in the show-cause order and the opinion, it directed the Clerk "to no longer accept any paper filed by Rose Lannquist Gouldy unless the document has been reviewed and signed by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar who certifies that a good faith basis exists for each claim presented." Her motion for rehearing was denied on August 28, 2026, and the mandate issued September 16, 2026. No monetary sanction was imposed.
Why does Gouldy v. Chiasson matter for law firms using AI?
Gouldy v. Chiasson is one of the decisions the Fourth District itself has since pointed to, in Lisandrillo v. Palozzi, when describing its response to AI-era pro se filings. The opinion’s conclusion is framed as an institutional observation: jurisdictional changes have increased pro se appeals, and “it appears that many pro se litigants, in both county and circuit courts, are using artificial intelligence platforms to generate appellate briefs and motions.” The court added that “digging into AI-generated filings consumes valuable time that could be better spent on other cases.” It did not find that Gouldy herself used AI; the operative findings are that her brief cited a nonexistent case, fabricated quotations, and relied on cases that did not support her propositions.
The court drew on its earlier decision in Eclectic Synergy, LLC v. Seredin for the rule that “[t]he submission of fictitious or fabricated case law … is sanctionable” and that this “includes citations to cases that do not stand for what is argued.” Citing Friend v. Serpa and the Second District’s decision in Rangel, it then stated that “[a] brief that blatantly and repeatedly includes fabricated quotations from Florida case law meets the standard of a frivolous or bad faith filing.”
The remedy was procedural rather than monetary. The court had cautioned Gouldy in a 2022 appeal against the same opponent that further frivolous filings “may result in sanctions, such as a bar on pro se filing in this Court.” After she responded to the show-cause order, the court imposed that restriction. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that when opposing a repeat self-represented litigant, the appellate court’s own record of prior warnings can shape the remedy as much as the defects in the current brief.
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- Verify quotations against the cited opinion, not only that the case exists. The court treated fabricated quotations from real Florida cases as the core of the frivolousness finding.
- Review a pro se opponent's appellate history for prior warnings; this court relied on earlier warnings, including one in a 2022 appeal, to impose a filing restriction.
- Document citation checks on responsive briefs in appeals against self-represented parties; the opinion itemizes the phantom case and each fabricated quotation.
- Consider that a court may sanction by restricting future pro se filings rather than by a monetary award, as the court did here.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution is a Charlotin tracker inference (the tracker lists the AI tool as 'Implied'). The opinion discusses AI use by pro se litigants generally and the show-cause order calls one citation 'hallucinated', but neither finds that Gouldy used AI.
- The July 22 show-cause order and the August 12 sanctions order are quoted from the text of those docket entries on the Fourth DCA's public docket; the signed order documents were not retrieved, and the docket text does not show the panel for the August 12 order. Gouldy's show-cause response is not publicly viewable and was not read.