June 1, 2026 (in 3 days): New York: 22 NYCRR Part 161 takes effect, system-wide AI policy for all UCS courts

Rodriguez v. Rodriguez

Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal · Fla. 6th DCA · Florida bar guidance

Court sanction

Verified April 26, 2026

Citation
Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, No. 6D2025-2419 (Fla. 6th DCA Apr. 10, 2026)
Decided
April 10, 2026

Summary

Attorney Karin S. Gerardin of Gerardin Law Firm, P.A. in Tavares filed a petition for writ of certiorari on behalf of Bruno Roberto Rodriguez challenging an Orange County Circuit Court order in a dissolution proceeding against Kathryn Louise Rodriguez. The Sixth District Court of Appeal denied the petition and noted that it cited non-existent cases as well as actual cases that did not stand for the legal propositions asserted. The court found the petition appeared to have been produced with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence without sufficient guardrails to ensure accuracy.

AI tool:
Unspecified generative AI
This case summary is informational only. Verify the underlying opinion or order against the primary source before relying on it in any filing or client matter.

What sanction did the court impose?

The court denied the petition and ordered Ms. Gerardin to show cause within ten days why she should not be sanctioned for filing a petition containing fabricated and misrepresented citations, and why she should not be referred to the Florida Bar for potential discipline. No monetary sanction was imposed in this order.

Why does Rodriguez v. Rodriguez matter for law firms using AI?

Rodriguez is a state appellate-court counterpart to the federal AI-citation sanctions docket and a useful data point for Florida managing partners: the Sixth DCA escalated directly to a show-cause order and a potential Florida Bar referral for an attorney whose petition cited fabricated authority, without waiting for opposing counsel to surface the problem. The order signals that Florida appellate panels are now reviewing citations for AI-era authenticity defects and treating them as candidates for discipline rather than mere briefing errors.

Sources

Primary sources

Further reading

Source PDF is a Westlaw printout mirrored from the Damien Charlotin hallucination database. We are working to add the underlying court docket (PACER, CourtListener, or court website) as a second source.

Unverified claims:
  • Exact docket number (6D2025-2419) inferred from petition filing date of December 12, 2025; verify against PDF cover page before publication.
  • Panel composition not extracted from PDF text.