The Southern District of Florida has sanctioned a lawyer for using hallucinated cases. The case is Byoplanet International, LLC v. Johansson, 792 F.Supp. 3d 1341 (D. SD Florida 2025). The opinion, finding in favor of substantial sanctions, is also well written and entertaining.
The opinion begins:
The proliferation and availability of artificial intelligence (“AI”) tools presents a challenge to the legal profession. Lawyers have duties both to their clients and to the courts to present accurate facts and citations to legal authority. When a lawyer presents false information to a court, that lawyer violates his duties. This case presents an important issue (unfortunately one that is occurring more often): what sanctions should a court impose on a lawyer who repeatedly uses false, fake, non-existent, AI-generated legal authorities in the drafting of complaints, motions, and other filings? Here, Plaintiffs’ counsel repeatedly regurgitated such “hallucinated” authority in eight separate but related cases. Four of these eight cases are presently before this Court. After considering the factual record, the relevant legal authority, and the threat this rampant conduct poses to the practice of law and the integrity of judicial proceedings, this Court imposes substantial sanctions….
Thus, a lawyer who wishes to use AI ethically must ensure that the legal propositions and authority generated are trustworthy. The lawyer has a duty to check all the cases and quotations for accuracy. Anything less is to abdicate one’s duty, waste legal resources, and lower the public’s respect for the legal profession and judicial proceedings.
In the litigation, the court eventually uncovered multiple instances where the plaintiff cited nonexistent cases.
The procedural history reflected substantial use of generative AI in briefs and other pleadings The court:
Beginning in March of 2025, James Martin Paul, Esq. (“Paul”), counsel for the Plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases and four other related cases filed in Florida courts (eight cases in total), repeatedly used AI to hallucinate cases and quotations in his filings. Indeed, Paul admitted to using generative AI and not checking its outputs in each of the eight related cases. [Transcript of June 17, 2025, Hearing (“H’g Tr.”) at 8:18-25, 25:10-19].
On March 12, 2025, Paul filed a Complaint in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida (“the O’Shea Complaint”), Case No. CACE-25-003491, on behalf of Richard Patrick Michael O’Shea (“O’Shea”).[3]In the O’Shea Complaint, Paul 1348*1348 used AI to generate at least two hallucinated cases. [Richard Patrick Michael O’Shea v. Promark Electronics, Inc., et al., Case No. CACE-25-003491, Complaint at 2 (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct.)].
On March 13, 2025, Paul filed a Complaint in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, Case No. CACE-25-003582, on behalf of Debt Dynamics, LLC (“the Debt Dynamics Complaint”). In the Debt Dynamics Complaint, Paul used AI to generate at least two hallucinated cases. [Debt Dynamics, LLC v. Promark Electronics, Inc., et al., Case No. CACE-25-003582, Complaint at 4 (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct.)]. In other filings in the Debt Dynamics case, he used AI to generate hallucinated cases, quotations, or parentheticals at least four other times, on May 6, 2025, and May 15, 2025. [See id. Plaintiffs Response in Opposition to Defendant Cerebus Capital Management, L.P.’s Motion to Dismiss, filed on May 6, 2025, at 2, 3; Plaintiffs Response in Opposition to Defendant ECI’s Motion to Dismiss, filed on May 6, 2025, at 2, 3; Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, filed on May 15, 2025, at 4; Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike, filed on May 15, 2025, at 2].
On April 1, 2025, Paul filed a Complaint in one of the above-captioned cases against Charles Gilstrap (“Gilstrap”) and Peter Johansson in the Southern District of Florida (“the First Federal Case”). [ByoPlanet International, LLC v. Peter Johansson and Charles Gilstrap, Case No. 0:25-cv-60630, ECF No. 1 (S.D. Fla.)]. Then, on April 4, 2025, Paul filed a Complaint against Jarred Knecht (“Knecht”) in the Southern District of Florida (“the Second Federal Case”). [ByoPlanet International, LLC v. Jarred Knecht, Case No. 0:25-cv-60646, ECF No. 1 (S.D. Fla.)].
On that same day, Defendant Gilstrap removed a case filed by Paul in Florida state court to the Southern District of Florida (“the Third Federal Case”). [ByoPlanet International, LLC and Richard O’Shea v. Charles Gilstrap, Case No. 0:25-cv-60647, ECF No. 1 (S.D. Fla.)]. Paul used AI to generate hallucinated cases and quotations in the Third Federal Case Complaint. [See id. ECF No. 1-3]. As a brief example of Paul’s use of hallucinated cases, he cited “Merrill Lynch v. Hagerty, 808 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)” for the proposition that “Breach of contract occurs when a party fails to perform their obligations, leading to damages.” [Id. at 3]. Like Justice Scalia’s quote in Liteky, the Merrill Lynch case does not exist; rather, the citation from the Southern Reporter leads to Roberts v. State, 808 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002). To this Court’s knowledge, none of the authority cited in the Complaints filed by Paul in the First and Second Federal Cases were hallucinated; however, Paul admitted at the June 17, 2025 Show Cause Hearing that he used AI to draft the Complaints in the First, Second, and Third Federal Cases. [H’g Tr. at 15:8-16].
On April 14, 2025, Paul filed a Complaint on behalf of O’Shea against Jason Novak (“the Fourth Federal Case”). [Richard Patrick Michael O’Shea v. Jason Novak, Case No. 0:25-cv-60712, ECF No. 1]. The Court became aware of this case only after the June 17 Show Cause Hearing and was thus unable to inquire into whether Paul used AI in drafting the Complaint for the Fourth Federal Case. When asked at the hearing about other cases in which he used AI, Paul did not name this case, stating instead “off the top of [his] head” that there were “at least” five cases in which he used AI. [H’g Tr. at 14:7-10].
On April 25, 2025, Gilstrap moved to dismiss the Complaint in the Third Federal 1349*1349 Case, claiming that Plaintiffs failed to correctly reference any case in the Complaint. [ByoPlanet International, LLC and Richard O’Shea v. Charles Gilstrap,Case No. 0:25-cv-60647, ECF No. 14]. From this moment on, there can be no reasonable doubt that Paul was on notice that his use of AI was leading to hallucinated cases and quotations. [See H’g Tr. at 9:21-10:2 (The Court: “[Y]ou don’t deny that you were on notice on April 25th of misrepresentations of case law, correct?” Attorney Paul: “That is correct.”)]. On May 5, 2025, in response to this Motion to dismiss, Paul cited Smith v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2010 WL 2400084, at *2 (S.D. Fla. 2010) for the proposition that “Courts do not dismiss claims over mis-citations or citation errors.” [ByoPlanet International, LLC and Richard O’Shea v. Charles Gilstrap, Case No. 0:25-cv-60647, ECF No. 16 at 4]. However, the Smith case cited by Paul does not exist; in fact, the citation leads to Hebert v. Plaquemine Caring, L.L.C., 2007-2243, 43 So. 3d 239 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/16/10). Paul also cited Hood v. Tompkins, 197 F. App’x 818, 819 (11th Cir. 2006),a real case, for the proposition that “Rule 11 sanctions require bad faith, not clerical error.” [Id.]. However, this quote does not appear anywhere in Hood, and the case does not discuss whether “clerical errors” are sufficient for Rule 11 sanctions, nor does it discuss “bad faith.” See generally Hood, 197 F. App’x 818. On May 12, 2025, Gilstrap filed a reply brief, again noting Paul’s numerous citations to hallucinated cases and quotations. [ByoPlanet International, LLC and Richard O’Shea v. Charles Gilstrap, Case No. 0:25-cv-60647, ECF No. 19].
While all this was going on, on May 7, 2025, Paul filed an appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Florida in Byo-Planet International, LLC v. Promark Electronics, Case No. 4D25-0557 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.).[4] In that appeal, Paul again used AI to cite hallucinated cases. [Id., Initial Brief at 5, 11, 13, 15, 20 (citing Castillo v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 274 So. 3d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019),[5]Chowdhury v. Pomeroy, 901 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), Nabulsi v. Nabulsi,97 So. 3d 933, 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), Olson v. Olson, 95 So. 3d 1150 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), and Perkins v. State, 228 So. 3d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017), which do not exist)]. Paul cited the same hallucinated cases in his Amended Initial Brief on May 8, 2025. [Id., Amended Initial Brief].
On May 9, 2025, in another case in Florida circuit court, Paul filed a motion for protective order in which he cited three more hallucinated cases. [Promark Electronics Inc. v. ByoPlanet International, LLC, et al., Case No. CACE-24-005937, Motion for Protective Order, filed on March 9, 2025, at 2-3 (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct.)]. In that same case one week later, Paul again used AI to generate hallucinated cases, quotations, and references, this time in a response to a motion for sanctions for O’Shea’s failure to appear at his scheduled deposition. [Id., Defendant Richard O’Shea’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff Promark Electronics Inc.’s Motion to 1350*1350 Compel Deposition and for Sanctions, filed on May 16, 2025, at 3-4].
On May 14, 2025, in the Second Federal Case, Knecht filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. [Second Federal Case, ECF No. 9]. The next day, on May 15, 2025, thirteen days before Plaintiff’s response was due,[6] Paul filed a response which included numerous AI-generated false quotations and a hallucinated case. [Id., ECF No. 10 (citing Gracia v. Palm Beach Cnty., 112 So. 3d 771, 774 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), which does not exist)]. On May 22, 2025, Knecht replied to Paul’s response and noted the fabricated quotations and hallucinated case. [Id., ECF No. 12].
On May 20, 2025, Gilstrap moved to dismiss the First Federal Case. Just two days later, on May 22, 2025, twelve days before Plaintiff’s response was due, Paul filed a response in which he, again, cited hallucinated cases and quotations. [The First Federal Case, ECF No. 32 at 3 (citing Kaplan v. Kaplan, 963 So. 2d 933, 938 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007), which does not exist)].
On May 29, the same day this Court entered an Order to Show Cause requiring Paul to state whether he intentionally made misrepresentations to the Court, Paul filed a Motion to Reopen Case in which he cited a fabricated quote from a real case. [Fourth Federal Case, ECF No. 8 at 2 (citing Fla. Physician’s Ins. Co. v. Ehlers, 8 F.3d 780, 783 (11th Cir. 1993), for the proposition that Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should be “liberally construed to do substantial justice”; this quote does not appear in the case)].
Then, on June 10, 2025, in response to an order to show cause regarding the use of AI-fabricated case citations, Paul included fabricated quotations to two real cases. [First Federal Case, ECF No. 38 at 2 (first citing Purchasing Power, LLC v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., 851 F.3d 1218, 1223 (11th Cir. 2017), for the quote that “[t]o exercise its inherent power to sanction, a court must find that the party acted in bad faith”—this quotation does not appear in the case; then citing Carroll v. TheStreet.com, Inc., No. 11-CV-81173, 2014 WL 5474061, at *2 (S.D. Fla. July 10, 2014), for the proposition that the court declined to impose sanctions for incorrect citations where “there was no showing that the error was intentional or calculated to mislead”— this quotation does not appear in the case)].[7]
On June 17, 2025, this Court held a Show Cause Hearing on Paul’s repeated use of AI to determine whether he intentionally made misrepresentations to the Court and acted in bad faith. [See Second Federal Case, ECF Nos. 13, 18]. At the hearing, Paul admitted that he and a paralegal used “AI-generated drafting procedures[,]” specifically, ChatGPT. [H’g Tr. at 5:12-17, 9:1-5]. Paul stated that he assigned his paralegal with drafting pleadings and briefs which he would “tweak.” 1351*1351 [Id. at 9:3-10]. Paul relied on the paralegal for checking the factual assertions and case law in the filings and assumed that they were proper, but he did not do any “due diligence” himself to check or correct the citations. [Id. at 9:10-15]. Paul stated plainly at the hearing: “The majority of some of the citations … came from AI-generated software,” and those citations were not checked. [H’g Tr. at 12:4-7]. Paul claimed that the last time he used AI was “mid-May[,]” although the timeline of events excavated by the Court belies that assertion. [Id. at 10:18-21].
Paul repeatedly stated at the hearing that he took full accountability for his actions and that they were not taken in bad faith, malicious, or intentional. [See, e.g., H’g Tr. at 25:16-19]. This Court strongly disagrees; what happened here constitutes repeated, abusive, bad-faith conduct that cannot be recognized as legitimate legal practice and must be deterred.
Simply put, Paul did not act as a reasonable attorney—not even close. A reasonable attorney does not blindly rely on AI to generate filings. A reasonable attorney, when made aware that his practices were leading to hallucinated cases and quotations, immediately changes course. A reasonable attorney does not rely on a paralegal to draft a filing. The conclusion that Paul failed to act as a reasonable attorney is unfortunate, but undeniable. Paul acted in bad faith for an improper purpose.
Further, all the sanctions ordered in this case would deter improper attorney conduct. While the use of AI by itself is not inherently suspect, wholesale reliance on AI without further inquiry or diligence by a lawyer is conduct which a court should deter, as lawyers must always conduct a reasonable inquiry. Strong sanctions against the undiligent, unverified use of AI will deter lawyers from blindly relying on AI and on paralegals for drafting submissions to the Court.
The Sanctions
The court imposed sanctions under Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. Section 1927 and its inherent authority on the attorney for the plaintiffs. The court awarded all fees reasonably incurred to respond to the hallucinated case citations. The court also dismissed the four related cases filed by the attorney.
Comment: the court’s opinion is thorough and carefully sets forth repeated use of generative AI in numerous pleadings long after the lawyer was on notice that he had used generative AI in his legal memoranda. I agree with the decision to sanction the attorney. I am amazed that lawyers continued to use generative AI without doing the cite checking I was trained to do early in my career.