A Florida appellate court has ordered a family lawyer to explain why she should not be sanctioned over filings the judges described as bearing the hallmarks of generative AI “slop”.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal did not identify fabricated authorities, false facts or conventional AI hallucinations. Its concern was different: the submissions contained lengthy, unfocused and difficult-to-understand arguments that appeared inconsistent with the lawyer’s duty to exercise independent professional judgment.
The court said it suspected that the filings contained AI-generated components, although the lawyer has not confirmed whether AI was used. She has ten days to respond before the court decides whether to impose sanctions or refer the matter for disciplinary consideration.
The development broadens the emerging standard for professional AI use. Checking citations and factual assertions is necessary, but it is not sufficient. Lawyers must also ensure that submissions are coherent, relevant, proportionate and genuinely responsive to the issues before the court.
For Australian practitioners, the practical implication is that verification cannot be reduced to a final hallucination check. Effective supervision requires the lawyer to reconstruct and adopt the reasoning itself: identifying the evidence, legal propositions and inferential steps supporting each requested conclusion. A filing may contain no invented authority and still fail the professional standard expected of counsel.
Source: Reuters reporting.
Leave a Reply