Kings Roofing NWFL, LLC v. Fusion Works Construction, LLC

How did the court address the AI-related conduct?

By order of July 20, 2026, as its text appears on the court's docket, the court noted that McCommon's Response to the Order to Show Cause, filed June 22, 2026, came six days after the extended deadline granted at his request, granted his motion for leave to file an amended response, and accepted the amended response as filed. The court stated that it "acknowledges Attorney McCommon's explanation, accepts his apology, and commends him for the proactive steps he has since taken to rectify his mistakes in this proceeding, including attending a CLE session on AI and implementing a firm-wide policy to verify the accuracy of legal authority on which he may rely." It then referred the matter to The Florida Bar "for any action it deems appropriate," citing Canon 3D.(2) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct and Rule Regulating The Florida Bar 3-7.18, and discharged the order to show cause. The order does not call the referral a sanction and imposes no fine. The appeal itself had been dismissed on the parties' stipulation, and the pending appellate fee motions were denied as moot by separate docket order on May 22, 2026.

Why does Kings Roofing NWFL, LLC v. Fusion Works Construction, LLC matter for law firms using AI?

Kings Roofing shows the Sixth District keeping hold of a brief-quality problem after the appeal itself was gone. The parties stipulated to dismissal, and the court dismissed the appeal, but in the same opinion it “expressly retain[ed] jurisdiction to pursue any possible sanctions” against appellant’s counsel. Its description of the problem was hedged: the Initial Brief cited “several cases, some of which appear to be fabricated,” and “looks as if it was drafted with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence without Mr. McCommon having put sufficient safeguards in place to ensure the existence or accuracy of the cases cited therein.” The court noted that this was “unfortunately not the first time our Court has encountered a filing with citations to cases that do not exist or to cases that are cited for inaccurate legal propositions,” citing its April 2026 Rodriguez v. Rodriguez order.

The remedy the court chose in the show-cause order is practical: counsel had to produce copies “of each and every case cited in the Initial Brief that actually exists, with highlighted quotations or language that support the assertions made in the Initial Brief,” within ten days, alongside a show-cause response on sanctions and Bar referral. That device puts the verification burden back on the filer in a form the court can check quickly.

The July 20, 2026 disposition is notable for its combination of leniency and referral. The court acknowledged counsel’s explanation, accepted his apology, and commended the CLE and firm-wide verification policy he adopted afterward, but it still referred the matter to The Florida Bar “for any action it deems appropriate” before discharging the show-cause order. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that, in this court, remediation after the fact was credited but did not stop a referral to the Bar.