Published opinion, 25 March 2026 · source · PDF · 6 pages
3d 652, 655-56 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) (citation modified).2 The defendant’s briefs were replete with case citations that either do not exist or fail to support the defendant’s arguments. Here, for example, the defendant cites non-existent cases such as Dausch v.
I write separately to highlight the need for prophylactic, rather than remedial, solutions to the problem of improper use by pro se litigants of AI chatbots. That is not to minimize the well-recognized problems of improper use of AI by attorneys, particularly where AI generates hallucinated or fake authority that the attorney submits to the court without verification. But courts have been properly and adequately responding to this problem by using existing rules and tools to sanction attorneys who engage in this improper conduct.