Florida appeals court orders self-represented litigant to show cause over AI-fabricated citations

The Florida Court of Appeal has issued a sharp rebuke to a pro se litigant whose appellate brief contained fabricated case citations, fake quotes, and misrepresentations of the record—a problem the court says is growing as more self-represented litigants turn to artificial intelligence tools.

Case Background

The case, Gouldy v. Chiasson, was decided Wednesday by a three-judge panel consisting of Judge Robert Gross, joined by Judges Melanie May and Spencer Levine. The appeal arose from a frivolous underlying lawsuit brought by litigant Gouldy against attorney Chiasson, who had represented appellees Amanda Munyan and Michael Peak in a related probate matter involving Gouldy.

Court's Findings

The court affirmed the appeal in full and issued a separate order to show cause as to why Gouldy should not be barred from further pro se filings. According to the opinion:

• Gouldy's excessively long pro se brief contained frivolous arguments
• The brief included misrepresentations of the record
• It cited a nonexistent ("phantom") case
• It contained fabricated quotes from actual legal decisions
• Many cited cases did not support the propositions for which they were cited

Growing Problem with AI-Generated Filings

The court highlighted a broader concern:

"This case demonstrates a growing problem in Florida's appellate courts. The recent change in jurisdiction has given intermediate appellate courts jurisdiction to hear appeals from county court cases. The result has been that the amount of pro se appeals has significantly increased."

The court noted that while AI-generated submissions are generally readable, many contain:

• Phantom authority (nonexistent cases)
• Misstatements of the record
• Fabricated quotations

Sanctions and Prior Warnings

The court observed that pro se litigants are not bound by the same ethical rules as licensed attorneys, but warned:

"The submission of fictitious or fabricated case law—whether the product of carelessness, misunderstanding, or reliance on generative artificial-intelligence tools—is sanctionable."

Gouldy had previously been warned twice against frivolous filings. The court cited two recent Florida appellate decisions supporting its authority to sanction litigants for reliance on "phantom authority" and for including "multiple misstatements and misquotes" of case law.

Conclusion

The court concluded that a brief "blatantly and repeatedly includ[ing] fabricated quotations from Florida case law meets the standard of a frivolous or bad faith filing, which authorizes sanctions under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(a)." A separate order to show cause has been issued regarding whether Gouldy should be barred from further pro se filings in the court.