Gouveia v. Meridian Financial Investments, LLC
District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District · Fla. 4th DCA · Florida bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se appellant cited Dausch v. Crane (non-existent) and a Bennett v. NationsBank citation that leads to an unrelated Mississippi case.
Consequence
Affirmed on merits; appellant put on notice that future AI use without verification may trigger Fla. R. App. P. 9.210(c) sanctions.
Lesson
The Fourth DCA warned this pro se appellant rather than sanctioning him; Lott's disclosure proposal was overtaken by Florida's statewide citation-accuracy rule.
Verified September 28, 2026
- Citation
- Gouveia v. Meridian Fin. Invs., LLC, No. 4D2025-0843 (Fla. 4th DCA Mar. 25, 2026) (May, J.)
- Decided
- March 25, 2026
Summary
Pro se appellant Elilton Alves Gouveia filed initial and reply briefs that, the court found, "were replete with case citations that either do not exist or fail to support the defendant's arguments." The opinion (May, J., with Conner and Lott, JJ., concurring) identifies Dausch v. Crane, 448 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), as a non-existent case, notes that the citation given for Bennett v. NationsBank, 759 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), leads instead to a Mississippi punitive-damages case, and lists other real cases cited for unrelated points. After affirming the settlement-enforcement order without elaboration, the court wrote "to call attention to the defendant's apparent use of artificial intelligence," in a section that begins with a limerick about pro se AI use. It quotes the Fourth DCA's Goya v. Hayashida on the harms of fake opinions and notes in a footnote that the Third DCA in Takefman v. Pickleball Club ordered a pro se appellant to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for fake citations.
- AI tool:
- Large language model (the court says it "appears" the appellant used one; no tool identified). The limerick in the opinion is attributed to ChatGPT 5.2
What did the court warn about?
Trial court order enforcing settlement agreement affirmed. The Fourth DCA put the appellant on notice that future unchecked use of AI in filings with the court may result in sanctions for failure to comply with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.210(c). No monetary sanction imposed in this opinion. Judge Lott, concurring, would support a rule requiring all litigants in the Fourth DCA to disclose AI use and certify its accuracy, citing Florida Bar News coverage (Feb. 9, 2026) of the Eleventh and Seventeenth Judicial Circuits' disclosure-and-certification orders as examples. Those circuit orders have since been retired. Separately from this opinion, the Florida Supreme Court amended Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.515(d)(2), effective June 15, 2026, to require a statewide citation-accuracy representation, and in AOSC26-12 barred courts from imposing AI disclosure requirements by local order.
Why does Gouveia v. Meridian Financial Investments, LLC matter for law firms using AI?
Gouveia is an ordinary appeal from an order enforcing a settlement agreement, affirmed “without elaborating on the details.” The court then turned to what it called the defendant’s “apparent use of artificial intelligence”: “It appears to us the defendant used a large language model (LLM) to write his briefs.” It observed that AI “is an important and productive tool, but left unchecked for accuracy and legitimacy, it can be a plague upon the judicial system,” and put “the defendant on notice that future unchecked use of artificial intelligence in filings with this court may result in sanctions for failure to comply with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.210(c).”
The AI section opens with a limerick whose source line attributes it to ChatGPT 5.2. The opinion names ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot only as examples of popular LLMs and does not attribute any tool to the appellant. Judge Lott’s concurrence is the policy-oriented part of the opinion. He argues that back-end warnings and sanctions work on attorneys, who are repeat players, but do little for “new pro se litigants who never received such warnings,” and that the problem has to be addressed up front. He would support a Fourth DCA rule requiring all litigants to disclose AI use and certify its accuracy.
That proposal did not come to pass. On May 28, 2026 the Florida Supreme Court amended Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2), effective June 15, 2026, so that every filer represents that cited authorities exist and are accurately cited. In AOSC26-12 it barred courts from imposing AI disclosure requirements by local order, and the circuit orders described in the article Judge Lott cited have been retired. Firms documenting compliance for Florida appellate work may wish to consider a citation-verification step that supports that representation on every 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.
- Review every authority cited in opposing pro se briefs, including whether each citation actually leads to the named case; here the Bennett v. NationsBank citation led to an unrelated Mississippi decision.
- Read Judge Lott's concurrence as history. Florida now requires every filer to represent that cited authorities exist and are accurately cited (amended Rule 2.515(d)(2), effective June 15, 2026), and AOSC26-12 bars courts from imposing AI disclosure requirements by local order.
Sources
Primary sources
Further reading
- Specific AI tool the appellant used is not identified on the record; the court says it 'appears' he used a large language model, and the limerick's source line attributes that verse to ChatGPT 5.2, but the opinion does not attribute the brief defects to any tool.