FLORIDA APPELLATE COURT ENTERS SHOW CAUSE ORDER FOR “AI SLOP” FINDING IT THREATENS THE ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

In yet another case which revealed that AI is not independently intelligent, the Fourth  DCA summarily denied a petition for prohibition in a dissolution of marriage case but took  the time to write a scathing opinion detailing multiple AI abuses by the petitioner’s attorney,  Jaclyn R. Soroka (“Soroka”). Lisandrillo v. Palozzi, No. 4D2026-2262, 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS  7179 (4th DCA Sep. 16, 2026).  

Describing the petitioner’s filings as “AI slop” containing “legal gibberish,” the Court  explained that the petitioner’s filings included “convoluted, false and frivolous arguments”  and that such filings “threaten[ed] the orderly administration of justice.”ⁱ The Court  expounded that although the case citations Soroka used were real and the cases existed, “the analytical reasoning – or lack of it – reveal[ed] that the arguments were assembled by  an AI tool rather than developed through a trained advocate's independent judgment.”ⁱⁱ 

Identifying “issue-churning” as an “increasing problem with AI-generated legal  documents,” the Court noted that Soroka’s filings “aggressively raise[d] scattershot  arguments” which actually hurt the client’s chances of success.ⁱⁱⁱ Elaborating, the Court  explained that abusive use of AI “to crank out extensive and confounding documents”  caused delay, annoyance, and expense forcing the judiciary, its staff, the parties, and their  attorneys to waste time and money addressing the frivolous filings.^iv 

Further, the Court noted that filings Soroka designated as emergencies were neither  urgent nor required immediate action, but were titled “emergency” for the sole purpose of  taking “priority over other litigants” improperly requiring the Court to “drop everything” to  address them.^v The Court compared Soroka’s “abusive motion practice” to that of a pro se  litigant, noting that “[c]ourts expect more from an attorney.”^vi Finally, the Court listed several  rules of professional conduct which Soroka may have violated and noted that Soroka’s  conduct also raised ethical issues concerning billing.^vii 

The Court required Soroka to respond to its show cause order by September 26, 2026,  noting the show-cause response was to be written “without the use of AI.”^viii To date, the  docket does not reflect a response but based on the mounting frustration with AI abuses, we  anticipate the Court will refer Soroka to the Florida Bar and impose severe monetary  sanctions regardless of counsel’s response.

In a hurry? Click here for the key points.

1. The Fourth DCA summarily denied a petition for prohibition in a dissolution of  marriage case but took the time to write a scathing opinion detailing multiple AI  abuses by the petitioner’s attorney, Jaclyn R. Soroka (“Soroka”). Lisandrillo v. Palozzi,  No. 4D2026-2262, 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 7179 (4th DCA Sep. 16, 2026). 

2. The Court listed several rules of professional conduct which Soroka may have  violated and noted that Soroka’s conduct also raised ethical issues concerning  billing. Comparing Soroka’s “abusive motion practice” to that of a pro se litigant, the  Court noted that it “expect[ed] more from an attorney.” 

3. The Court required Soroka to respond to its show cause order by September 26, 2026,  noting the show-cause response was to be written “without the use of AI.” To date,  the docket does not reflect a response but based on the mounting frustration with AI  abuses, we anticipate the Court will refer Soroka to the Florida Bar and impose severe  monetary sanctions regardless of counsel’s response.

ⁱ Lisandrillo, at *1.  ⁱⁱ Lisandrillo, at 1 n1, 16.  ⁱⁱⁱ Lisandrillo, at *17.  ^iv Lisandrillo, at *20.  ^v Lisandrillo, at *8.  ^vi Lisandrillo, at *21-22.  ^vii Lisandrillo, at *20-21.  ^viii Lisandrillo, at *22.

---

`

Headquarters:

499 NW 70th Avenue, Suite 309 

Plantation, FL 33317

Main: 954-564-0071

Fax: 954-564-9252