Unethical hallucinations

FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY

VOLUME 50 NUMBER 50

CASES FROM THE WEEK OF DECEMBER 19, 2025

COURT REFERS ATTORNEY TO FLORIDA BAR FOR CITING CASES THAT DID NOT EXIST OR DID NOT STAND FOR WHAT COUNSEL REPRESENTED THEM TO SAY

Russell v. Mills, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D2609 (Fla. 2d DCA Dec. 10, 2025):

In a case litigated between an attorney and a pro se litigant, the attorney filed an answer brief containing 3 case citations. Only 2 were actual cases published in the Southern Reporter, and both were misquoted in the answer brief (including attributing quoted text from one case that was actually found in another). The 3rd citation was completely made up.

Because the 3rd case citation appeared to have been “hallucinated,” as the court noted, generated by artificial intelligence, and because the other two case citations were misquoted, the court issued an order to show cause requiring appellee’s counsel to explain how the citations and quotations were generated. The court also asked counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.

In her response, the attorney stated that the 3 case citations were researched through computer-generated searches, and she acknowledged that she failed to fully vet those searches. In substance, counsel advised the court that her computer-generated searches misstated the law, but she did not intend to mislead the court.

The court observed that it is seeing this problem more and more frequently, and that this was the 2nd case in which the court referred an attorney to the Florida Bar for similarly relying on generative artificial intelligence without checking the veracity of the authorities. The court reminded us that ethical requirements are not excused simply because a computer program generates faulty or misleading legal analysis. Attorneys have a fundamental duty to read the authorities they cite in appellate briefs and other court filings to confirm they support the propositions for which they are cited. When an attorney “fundamentally” abdicates that duty to the court, the court said it has a duty to refer the matter to the Florida Bar. The court noted that using generative artificial intelligence is acceptable, but the attorney remains responsible for the work product it generates.

AN APPEAL FROM AN AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT IS UNTIMELY WHEN THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AT ERRORS IN THE ORIGINAL FINAL JUDGMENT

Fletcher v. Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D2612 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec. 10, 2025):

The defendants appealed an agreed amended final judgment of foreclosure. When an amended final judgment materially modifies an original final judgment, the appellate court’s jurisdiction on appeal of the amended final judgment is limited to reviewing the amended portions only.

Here, the appeal sought review of alleged errors in the original final judgment. The amended final judgment mirrored the original in all respects, except that it removed an additional property from the list of properties to be sold at the judicial sale. The appellant’s challenge did not concern the removed property; instead, it targeted an alleged error contained in the original final judgment. Because the notice of appeal was taken from the amended final judgment but challenged only the original judgment, it was untimely. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING COUNTY’S MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT WHERE PLAINTIFF CONCEDED THE COUNTY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION AND THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A FINDING OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE

Miami-Dade County v. Martin, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D2614 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec. 10, 2025):

The plaintiff stepped into, and fell through, an uncovered county-owned water meter box while walking home from a dinner party in downtown Miami. She did not take any photos on the night of the incident, and she went to the emergency room the following morning for treatment.

Two days later, the plaintiff returned and took a photograph of the water meter box, which was then covered and cracked. A month later, she returned again, removed the cover, and took several photographs. One showed brown leaves inside the water meter box. There was no evidence indicating when or how the leaves entered the box.

The plaintiff sued the county a year later for negligent maintenance of the water meter cover. At trial, she called the water and sewer department’s customer service manager, who testified that meter readers are trained to inspect the boxes they service. She also presented evidence that there were no records of complaints, repairs, or inspections of the subject meter box before her accident.

At the close of the plaintiff’s case, the county moved for a directed verdict, arguing the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that the county had actual or constructive notice of the missing cover, and that her claims depended on improper inference stacking.

The county presented evidence that water meter boxes often contain leaves, which can enter through the sides of the lid even when it is properly in place, or when the cover is removed. The customer service representative also testified that the monthly and quarterly reports for the water meters in that area showed no missing covers before the incident.

The county argued on appeal that the trial court erred in denying its post-trial motion because the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of constructive notice without improper inference stacking. The appellate court agreed.

To recover for injuries from a slip and fall, a plaintiff must show that the party responsible for the premises had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Constructive notice may be shown by evidence that the condition existed for such a length of time that, in the exercise of ordinary care, the defendant should have known of it, or by showing the condition occurred with such regularity that it was foreseeable.

Here, the plaintiff conceded the county did not have actual notice of the condition that caused her fall. As for constructive notice, her evidence hinged on the July photograph taken 2 months after the accident depicting brown leaves in the water box.

To conclude the county had constructive notice that the cover was missing before the accident, the jury would have had to infer, at minimum, that (1) the leaves shown in the July photograph entered the water meter box while the cover was missing; (2) the leaves were initially green when they entered; (3) the leaves did not enter when the lid was on; (4) the leaves entered before the plaintiff’s fall; (5) the leaves were inside the box at the time of the fall; and (6) a reasonably diligent inspection by the county would have revealed the missing cover before the accident. Because this required an impermissible stacking of inferences, and because the plaintiff offered no evidence of how long the defective condition (the missing water meter cover) existed before her fall, the verdict was based on improper inference stacking.

The court reversed for entry of final judgment for the county.