Wow... the legal profession’s pushback on AI is starting to get a lot more serious. 👀 And this one is very interesting. A Florida lawyer is facing possible sanctions for suspected AI use even though there were no fake cases or hallucinated citations. The cases were real. The citations were real. The court’s issue was basically: did a lawyer actually think through and write this? In Lisandrillo v. Palozzi, the 4th DCA tore into a series of filings in a divorce/custody case, calling them unfocused, scattershot and, at points, basically gibberish. Judge Robert Gross wrote: “An AI supercomputer would struggle to find meaning in some of the prose used in this case.” The court suspected the filings had been put together using AI instead of through the lawyer’s own independent professional judgment. It then ordered the lawyer to explain within 10 days, specifically WITHOUT USING AI, why she shouldn’t be sanctioned or referred to The Florida Bar. The lawyer has publicly denied using AI to generate the filings. The underlying message from the court seems pretty clear: Using AI isn’t a defense for bad lawyering, and even technically accurate AI-assisted work can become a problem if it looks like nobody exercised actual legal judgment. I think we’re going to see a lot more of this. The legal profession is starting to push back on AI use in a much more fundamental way than just “don’t hallucinate cases”!