Russell v. Mells
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District · Fla. 2d DCA · Florida bar guidance
Verified May 5, 2026
- Citation
- Russell v. Mells, No. 2D2024-1560 (Fla. 2d DCA Dec. 10, 2025)
- Decided
- December 10, 2025
Summary
Sara Evelyn McLane, counsel for appellee Linda Burnell Mells, filed an answer brief containing three case citations. Two were misquoted (text was attributed to cases that did not contain the quoted language), and the third, "Cade v. Roberts, 403 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)," was entirely fabricated. After an order to show cause, McLane conceded the citations had been generated by "computer generated searches" she "failed to fully vet." Chief Judge Lucas, joined by Judges Morris and Rothstein-Youakim, referred her to the Florida Bar.
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI
What sanction did the court impose?
Final judgment reversed and remanded; the panel referred Attorney McLane to the Florida Bar. No monetary sanction was imposed by the appellate court. The opinion was published to reinforce that ethical duties under Rules Regulating the Florida Bar 4-1.1 and 4-3.3(a)(1) are not excused by reliance on generative AI.
Why does Russell v. Mells matter for law firms using AI?
Russell v. Mells is the Florida Second District’s second AI-hallucination bar referral in roughly four months, following Rangel (Aug. 29, 2025), and signals that Florida appellate panels are now treating fabricated citations as a recurring pattern rather than a novel surprise. For managing partners, the operative point is that the court rejected lack of intent to mislead as a defense and treated inadequate verification of “computer generated searches” as a per se Rule 4-1.1 and 4-3.3 problem warranting Bar referral.
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.