The human psyche seeks affirmation, or at a minimum desires it. There is an innate human need for acceptance, though there are those among us who need it less for whatever reason. All that considered, embarrassment is troubling to most people whether it is writ large or merely some social faux pas.
These thoughts struck me with the recent rendition of Lisandrilo v. Palozzi, 2026 WL 2727559 (Fla. 4th DCA September 16, 2026). There, the language is frank and perhaps troubling. The analysis is critical and somewhat unforgiving. There is embarrassment, or at least should be.
The appellate court was asked to grant an extraordinary writ. See A Law Student and a Series of Dumb Mistakes (May 2018). The appellate court summarily denied that request and nonetheless wrote “to address counsel’s filing of what appears to be 'AI Slop.'” This was described as “gibberish” and evidenced “abuse (of) the litigation process in different ways-including churning out the convoluted, false, and frivolous arguments." That criticism will be seen by some as harsh. Others may welcome it.
After a brief reminder that “abusive AI filing threatens the orderly administration of justice,” the court provides edification for the parties and public. It is imperative that all orders are of value to the litigants in a particular case, but that they also are the fabric of the common law and inform a far wider audience.
The challenges in the trial court began with a party electing to disregard a judge’s Family Law visitation order. The attorney may have unsuccessfully encouraged client compliance, but in filings seemingly strove to excuse non-compliance. This was followed by a “41-page … ‘Urgent Omnibus Application,’” which sought “13 forms of relief.”
It is likely worth mentioning that the lawyer is board certified in Family Law, and has 15 years’ experience practicing. According to the firm website, the lawyer is “considered one of the top lawyers in the state of Florida.” Accolades listed there also include “a Rising Star and Super Lawyer,”a “Top Lawyer.” again, “a Top Lawyer,”Legal Elite Top Lawyer,” as well as “one of the 40 Under 40 Outstanding Lawyers of South Florida.”
As a side note, being "one of the top lawyers" may be a matter of opinion. How anyone is perceived, by self or others, may be difficult to judge, quantify, and sustain. May I just add, that I am one of the top blog writers in the universe? See Rule 4-7.14, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. Do perceptions matter? Do they change with passage of time and other circumstances?
That Omnibus Application was soon followed by an “emergency motion to vacate” the visitation order being ignored, and “three separate motions in limine,” addressing testimony anticipated in a motion hearing. At that hearing, instead of addressing the “emergency motion,” the attorney proceeded with the “urgent” and “omnibus” motion. It was denied, and the court adjourned with the intent to reconvene later that day to address the original issue – contempt for non-compliance with the original decision to disregard the initial order.
That hearing included respondent presenting evidence of petitioner's violation of the order. The petitioner chose not to present contrary evidence, but “again tried to rely on ‘prior filings.’” In the end, the petitioner was held in contempt.
Additionally, “petitioner filed a 33-page motion to disqualify the judge.” This “Raise(d) many frivolous arguments, including arguments that are contrary to the record,” and the denial led to the filing of a “61-page emergency petition (in the Fourth District that) seeks a writ of prohibition” regarding the disqualification denial and also “certiorari review of seven other rulings.”
The appellate court includes portions of the filing in an appendix to the decision and describes the filing contents with phrases like
“confusing request”“frivolous argument”“a string of convoluted arguments”“abuse of procedure”“request for certiorari relief are frivolous”“has no precedential value and should not have been cited.”“irrelevant”“solely to disparage the judge”“falsely alleges”“does not accurately represent”“legally insufficient”“allegations ….contrary to the record”“merely complain about adverse rulings”“legal gibberish”“bizarre”Emphasis of “seemingly random sentences”“bogus arguments”“issue churning”“unpreserved issues”“scattershot arguments”“spurious arguments”“laundry list of convoluted arguments”“an AI supercomputer would struggle to find meaning in some of the prose”
The opinion concludes:
“pro se litigants and lawyers can easily abuse AI to crank out extensive and confounding documents that cause delay, annoyance, and expense to the other side. Busy courts can drown in a flood of filings that are difficult to navigate.”
Citing Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.515(d)(2), the Fourth DCA says that counsel’s signature is representation that the pleading has been read, and “that there are good grounds to support” it, and it “is not interposed for delay.” Instead, the court concludes that the filings there were “abusive motion practice.” The court concludes that the conduct “implicates many rules of professional conduct,” mentioning:
"4-1.1 (“Competence”); R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-2.1 (“Adviser”); R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-3.1 (“Meritorious Claims and Contentions”); R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-3.2 (“Expediting Litigation”); and R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-3.3 (“Candor toward the Tribunal”). Counsel’s conduct also raises ethical questions concerning billing. R.Regulating Fla. Bar 4-1.5 (“Fees and Costs for Legal Services”)"
The court concluded allowing the attorney ten days to show cause “without the use of AI” why sanctions should not be imposed. And why the matter should not be referred to The Florida Bar. I do not recall an instance in which a court imposed a prophylactic AI prohibition. That, in itself, is interesting.
The court opinion is not final, and not yet “released for publication.” The attorney’s response to the order to show cause certainly left the door open to provide explanation and alter the ultimate outcome. Nonetheless, the court's decision became reasonably public on blogs, websites, social media, and the news.
The response was filed September 28, 2026. It is lengthy (over 80 pages) and an interesting read. It explains that "it is often true that what a lawyer says in eight words could be said in two" but also notes that responding to statements may take more words than the statements, and that in this response "I chose completeness of the record over brevity."
This response focuses initially on the court's noting the previous filings' "appearance," i.e. "appears to be 'AI Slop.'” The attorney takes issue with appearance, suggesting substance is the point. The attorney then cites "The Florida Bar's advisory opinion on generative artificial intelligence," notes that "delegation" is not appropriate, and acknowledges the lawyer remains "ultimately responsible for the work product."
The responding lawyer admirably accepts responsibility for all decisions and filings. Stated plainly, they note:
"I do not delegate the generation of a filing to artificial intelligence, to any tool, or to any other person""I would not trust a machine to do what I do not entrust to another human being, and I do not.""Every word I file is a word I have read, judged, verified against its source, and adopted as my own."
Those statements should be engraved on the wall of every lawyer's office. You can use a tool, but you remain responsible.
The responding attorney then notes that Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.515, 435 So. 3d 5, 5-7 (Fla. 2026), "amended this year," is focused narrowly; it "asks whether the authorities identified "exist and are accurately cited." That is narrower than an obligation to read, and that signature is an endorsement and certification.
The responding attorney also stresses this was a pro bono case as directed by "chapter 61" (which I have not been able to locate). It is possible that this is a reference to the American Bar's Rule 6.1 on pro bono service. It may also be reference to The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 4-6.1. I resorted to AI to find "chapter 61" and was disappointed.
In a somewhat more difficult-to-find conclusion, the Fourth District closed its Order to Show Cause on October 21, 2026 with a referral to The Florida Bar. This concludes that the attorney "does not deny using AI but evades the issue." The court again mentions the attorney's use of a "rough transcript," and concludes the lawyer then "intentionally brought a false claim that she was mocked."
The court concluded, succinctly and critically:
"That counsel believes her practice in this case is acceptable raises many issues that the Florida Bar should consider."
That process will proceed as such matters do. The analysis and outcome will be interesting in the broad context of legal practice, AI engagement, and the discipline process.
Regardless of that outcome, some points will remain as object lessons for all filers. First, just because AI makes it sound plausible does not mean it is persuasive, rational, or legally appropriate. Second, the filer has every obligation to read before signing, despite the potential to read the rules more narrowly. Third, signing means something and could lead to inquiry or worse. Fourth, substantively, when given your opportunity to be heard it is advisable that you either speak or accept that your waiver has meaning.
There is also encouragement here to be brief. Every lecture on trial practice I have attended has stressed this. Litigants may have 100 points to make, but time and space are limited. There must be discretion exercised; brevity can be powerful, and the most critical points must be prioritized.
Finally, I am reminded of the former Eastern Airlines. Their slogan was catchy, and we old folks will remember "we earn our wings every day." No one cares how smooth the landing was, how courteous the crew was, or how clean the airplane was on yesterday's flight. We all want the best care, courtesy, and cleanliness on our own flight—today.
Lawyers are no different. Every client is special. Every case or assignment is important. Every action, inaction, and discourse matters—to someone. What matters in this case, today, is what happens in this case. Reputation also matters, and is built over years. Must the lawyer perform to standards completely each and every day? "Come on. You could say. It's okay. They know." My Cousin Vinny (20th Century, 1992).
