For Judges, “AI Slop” Is Becoming More Than Just Fake Cases

By now, many lawyers and non-lawyers alike have heard at least one story about the lawyer or law firm that submitted a brief citing “hallucinated” case citations generated by AI tools. (If you haven’t, check out this, or this, or this, or this…). Though fake or hallucinated case citations are, sadly, becoming commonplace in the courtroom, a recent decision issued by the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, demonstrates that judges are beginning to take notice of—and to consider imposing sanctions for—briefs that exhibit the hallmarks of being entirely or nearly-entirely generated by AI, even if the briefs do not contain fake cases.

On September 16, 2026, the Florida appellate court issued a scathing opinion chastising a Florida family law attorney for submitting an appellate brief that the court characterized as “lengthy and unfocused,” containing “gibberish,” and “churning out convoluted, false, and frivolous arguments.” Unlike many other court opinions admonishing attorneys for submitting briefs containing fake or non-existent case citations, the Florida appellate court expressly notes in the beginning of its opinion that “[t]he AI slop problem we address here has nothing to do with hallucinated law or false legal citations.” Instead, the court cites a host of inaccuracies, mischaracterizations and outright fabrications in concluding that the submitting attorney improperly relied on AI to generate an entire brief. For example, the court notes that the brief completely inaccurately describes colloquies had and recorded in open court; cites an unpublished opinion with no precedential value or relevance to the lawyer’s case; and recites frivolous arguments that are wholly unsupported by the law and the facts. The court even takes note of the brief’s unusual formatting, stating that the brief contains bold and italicized phrases to “emphasize . . . seemingly random sentences causing the reader to focus on what turns out to be irrelevant facts.” All of this, according to the court, amounts to “legal gibberish” and an abusive filing that implicates many of the lawyer’s ethical obligations.

The court then issues a warning about the use of AI in the judicial process. The court says, “Busy courts can drown in a flood of filings that are difficult to navigate. Abusive AI filing clogs dockets and undermines the administration of justice.” While the court says that pro se litigants are required to adhere to the same standards, courts simply “expect more from an attorney.” The court concludes its decision by requiring the submitting lawyer to file a brief—which is to be drafted “without the use of AI”—to explain why she should not be sanctioned or referred to the Florida Bar for consideration of disciplinary proceedings for submitting frivolous filings.

The Florida decision is a sobering check for lawyers and pro se litigants that rely heavily on AI to prepare court filings. Lawyers are required to do more than simply confirm that the cases they cite are real and stand for the propositions lawyers say they do. Rather, lawyers must carefully ensure that their filings accurately reflect the record, the facts and the law. Failing to do so could lead to more than mere embarrassment or losing a motion. The Florida court made clear that lawyers who submit filings completely generated by AI and unchecked by the attorneys signing them risk running afoul of their ethical obligations, such as their obligations to provide “competent representation” (ABA Model Rules of Prof. Conduct 1.1), to exercise “independent professional judgment” in rendering advice (Id. Rule 2.1), to not bring or defend actions without a basis in “law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous” (Id. Rule 3.1) and to not knowingly make false statements of law and fact to a tribunal (Id. Rule 3.3). The Florida case is yet another example that while AI can be a tool for helping busy attorneys organize their analyses or research, AI is not a substitute for legal advice developed and presented by a trained attorney.