Florida appeals court mulls barring self-represented litigant for AI-fabricated citations

The Florida Court of Appeal has issued a sharp rebuke to a self-represented litigant whose brief contained fabricated citations, fake quotes, and frivolous arguments—a case the court says illustrates a growing problem with artificial intelligence-generated filings in Florida's appellate courts.

Background

The case, Gouldy v. Chiasson, was decided Wednesday by a three-judge panel (Judge Robert Gross, joined by Judges Melanie May and Spencer Levine). The appeal stemmed from a frivolous lawsuit brought by Gouldy against attorney Chiasson, related to Chiasson's representation of appellees Amanda Munyan and Michael Peak in a probate matter involving Gouldy.

Court's Findings

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

Key findings from the opinion:

• Gouldy's brief contained frivolous arguments, misrepresentations of the record, a phantom case, and fabricated quotes from actual cases
• The brief raised 15 issues, some with sub-issues, most of which were unpreserved, inadequately briefed, or wholly meritless
• Gouldy had previously been warned twice against frivolous filings

The AI Problem

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 opinion noted that while courts initially handled county court appeals expeditiously, a new trend has emerged:

• Many pro se litigants are using artificial intelligence platforms to generate appellate briefs and motions
• While AI-generated prose is generally readable, many submissions contain phantom authority, misstatements of the record, and fabricated quotations

Sanctions and Precedent

The court emphasized 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."

The court cited two recent Florida appellate decisions:

• Friend v. Serpa (Fla. App. 2025) — affirming the court's authority to sanction litigants for reliance on "phantom authority"
• Clerk of Ct. & Comptroller for 13th Jud. Cir., Hillsborough Cnty. v. Rangel (Fla. App. 2025) — finding sanctions appropriate where a brief included "multiple misstatements and misquotes" of case law

The court concluded that a brief "blatantly and repeatedly" including fabricated quotations from Florida case law meets the standard of a frivolous or bad faith filing, authorizing sanctions under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(a).