Lisandrillo v. Palozzi

What is the current procedural posture?

In an opinion by Judge Gross (Levine and Shepherd, JJ., concurring), the court denied the prohibition petition and the request for certiorari relief, holding the motion to disqualify was properly denied. It stated that "whether this was AI-generated, AI-assisted, or something else makes no difference. An attorney is obligated to stand behind any submission to a court." The court said counsel's conduct "implicates many rules of professional conduct," listing Rules Regulating The Florida Bar 4-1.1, 4-2.1, 4-3.1, 4-3.2, and 4-3.3, and raised billing questions under rule 4-1.5. It ordered Soroka, within ten days, to "file a response and show cause" (the order adds "without the use of AI") why sanctions, "such as referral to the Florida Bar for consideration of disciplinary proceedings, should not be imposed for submitting frivolous filings to this Court," citing Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a). A separate same-day order denied the request for emergency treatment. The court's docket shows Soroka's response to the order to show cause, with an appendix, filed September 29, 2026; no ruling on sanctions appears as of that date.

Why does Lisandrillo v. Palozzi matter for law firms using AI?

Lisandrillo v. Palozzi extends the Fourth District’s recent AI-filing sanctions against vexatious pro se litigants, which the opinion illustrates with Avery v. Beauzil and Gouldy v. Chiasson, to an attorney’s “AI slop.” The entry records suspected AI misuse, not citation fabrication, which sets it apart from Gouldy, where the brief cited a nonexistent case and fabricated quotations. The court was explicit that the defect was not false citations: the problem it addressed “has nothing to do with hallucinated law or false legal citations.” The problem was volume and incoherence. The court described 61 pages of petition, 25 pages of certiorari argument on seven rulings, a 33-page disqualification motion raising 14 grounds, and a prior 41-page omnibus application seeking 13 forms of relief. It characterized this pattern as “issue churning” and said that “AI churns out a laundry list of convoluted arguments that no competent lawyer should make.”

The court’s AI language is framed as suspicion, not a finding. It wrote that “[t]he filings contain indicia of non-human authorship,” that it “suspect[s] that counsel’s filings contain AI-generated components,” and, in a footnote, that some portions “appear too unpolished to have been produced by AI.” It then made the source irrelevant to the analysis: whatever the drafting method, “[a]n attorney is obligated to stand behind any submission to a court,” and by signing a filing counsel certifies under Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.515(d)(2) that there are good grounds to support it and that it is not interposed for delay.

The sanction question remains open. The court directed counsel to respond to the order to show cause “without the use of AI” and named a Florida Bar referral as a possible sanction under rule 9.410(a). The court’s docket shows her response was filed on September 29, 2026. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that this court evaluated an attorney’s filings, which it suspected were AI-assisted, against the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar on competence, independent judgment, meritorious claims, expediting litigation, candor, and fees, in a case with no hallucinated citation at all.