Parnell v. Florida Department of Corrections

What sanction did the court impose?

In a published per curiam opinion, the panel affirmed summary judgment on both retaliation claims. It granted the Department's motion to strike the relevant portions of Parnell's reply brief and its motion for attorney's fees for the time spent preparing the motion to strike and for sanctions, reserving jurisdiction to set the amount: the Department was to file a fee affidavit within ten days and Parnell's counsel could respond within ten days after that. Citing Model Rule 1.1, the Court said it "seems that counsel has failed to use the required 'legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation [at hand].'" Under Eleventh Circuit Rule 2 of Addendum Eight, the Court referred attorney Dufirstson J. Neree to the Committee on Lawyer Qualifications and Conduct for any disciplinary action the Committee deems appropriate. A footnote noted that Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2) now requires the signer of a court filing to represent that all cited legal authorities exist and are accurately cited.

Why does Parnell v. Florida Department of Corrections matter for law firms using AI?

Parnell is a published Eleventh Circuit sanctions ruling whose emphasis falls on candor after the fact. The fabricated authority the FDOC challenged, which its motion described as two non-existent court opinions and at least five non-existent quotations, was in the reply brief, and the appellee brought it to the Court by motion. Counsel’s answer was to withdraw the statements and call the motion moot. The Court ordered supplemental briefing so counsel could explain where the material came from, and received only a statement that it “did not come from a verified review of the cited opinions.”

The Court did not find that AI produced the citations. It said the problem of “attorneys citing hallucinated authorities” is well publicized, that counsel “[p]resumably” wrote the brief and should know how he came to rely on nonexistent authorities, and that “[w]hether the appellant’s citations were generated by AI, as we suspect, or simply made up by counsel, we nevertheless expect accurate representations from any attorney appearing before this Court.” A second footnote made the same point about delegation: whether counsel drafted the brief, relied on a non-lawyer, or used “a notoriously unreliable generative AI platform,” his signature certifies that the contentions are warranted by existing law.

The remedies combine a fee award, a strike, and a disciplinary referral naming the attorney. The Court also noted, in a footnote, that the Florida Supreme Court had amended Rule 2.515(d)(2) to require the signer of a filing to represent that all cited legal authorities exist and are accurately cited. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that this Florida certification and the Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning point in the same direction for lawyers practicing in both systems.