JMOR Properties, LLC v. Artist Alley Townhomes, LLC

What sanction did the court impose?

In a per curiam order on the order to show cause (Gross, Ciklin, and Forst, JJ.), the court "impose[d] the sanction of referring counsel to the Florida Bar," citing Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2) and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410(a), and referred the matter "for consideration of disciplinary proceedings" under Rule Regulating The Florida Bar 3-7.18(a)(2). The court held that the wrong-draft explanation "does not excuse the failure to verify the accuracy of all citations in his filing." It also examined the revised petition counsel said he intended to file and found that it too failed to disclose clearly established contrary law on jurisdiction, citing Rule 4-3.3(a)(3). The court concluded that, even if counsel was not trying to mislead, "the failure to discover the controlling law shows a violation of the duty of competence" under Rule 4-1.1. No monetary sanction was imposed. The petition had already been dismissed on June 30, 2026.

Why does JMOR Properties, LLC v. Artist Alley Townhomes, LLC matter for law firms using AI?

JMOR Properties is a Fourth District Bar referral in which counsel acknowledged the defective citations and described the AI workflow he said produced them. The petition asked the court to review an order vacating a clerk’s default by asserting that the court had “repeatedly entertained, and granted” such review; the court found it cited a non-existent case allegedly from the Fourth District and other cases that do not support the proposition. In response to the show-cause order, counsel described his process: AI software researches and drafts, and he then verifies every citation and revises. The court recounted that, according to counsel, he “allegedly did that in this case” but “while he was making final edits, he inadvertently worked from the wrong version and ended up filing the AI’s initial draft.”

The court accepted none of this as a defense. Citing the same court’s May 2026 Eclectic Synergy decision for the rule that “[a]n attorney is subject to sanctions for filings that contain fictitious authority or ‘cite actual cases for inaccurate legal propositions,’” it held that the wrong-draft explanation “does not excuse the failure to verify the accuracy of all citations in his filing,” citing Rule 2.515(d)(2)(D). It also quoted the Second District’s Russell v. Mells statement that the court is “compelled to refer that lawyer to the Bar” when imaginary authorities are cited as law.

The order’s more unusual step is its review of “the revised petition which counsel alleges he intended on filing.” That version, the court found, still failed to disclose the settled caselaw holding that certiorari does not lie to review an order vacating a default where no judgment was entered, a line of authority it traced to 1979 and listed at length. “Any competent research (using AI or otherwise) should have revealed the abundant caselaw directly addressing our lack of jurisdiction.” The court therefore grounded the referral in competence under Rule 4-1.1 as well as in the false citations. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that verification of AI output extends to checking what the output left out.