FLORIDA APPELLATE COURT WARNS ATTORNEYS THAT SANCTIONS WILL BECOME MORE SEVERE FOR RECKLESS RELIANCE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Florida’s Second DCA summarily affirmed a declaratory judgment in favor of U.S.  Bank without elaborating on the merits but wrote a lengthy opinion to explain the basis for  sanctions it imposed against the appellant’s counsel, Kenneth Keefe, for “rampant use of  hallucinated citations” which rendered the “legal representations” in appellant’s briefs untrustworthy. Cap. Standard, LLC v. Tchentsov, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D1719, at *1, 5 (Fla. 2d  DCA August 21, 2026). 

To start, the Court discussed several opinions entered over the last three years  wherein both federal and state courts imposed sanctions on attorneys for misuse of AI.ⁱ The  Court’s point was that attorneys should be well-aware of the risks associated with unbridled  reliance on AI for legal research and writing noting it “defie[d] belief for a practicing attorney  to plead ignorance of the risks” at this point.ⁱⁱ 

Despite this reality, the Court explained, with a note of despair, that Attorney Keefe  relied on a generative AI tool “without any apparent guardrails” filing an amended initial brief  with thirty-one AI hallucinations and a reply brief with sixteen.ⁱⁱⁱ The Court, “meticulously  documenting the forty-six hallucinations,” entered a show cause order giving Attorney Keefe  four days to (1) file copies of every case he cited in the briefs, (2) highlight and annotate each  case identifying the exact location in the case where the cited proposition was located, and  (3) explain “in a separate and complete written submission” why each non-existent case was included in his briefs.^iv 

Dumbfoundingly, Attorney Keefe ignored the Court’s show-cause order for over a  month and only responded to a subsequent order which struck his client’s (Capital  Standard) briefs.^v Without complying with the initial show-cause order and without  apologizing to the Court, Attorney Keefe admitted to using AI as a “supplemental research tool” but simply explained he was not aware that AI tools could “generate inaccurate or  nonexistent citations.”^vi Attorney Keefe advised the Court he would implement processes to  avoid the problem in the future, but failed to specify what those processes would entail.^vii 

The Court was not having it. After providing a detailed analysis of pertinent procedural  rules that Attorney Keefe violated, the Court imposed a $1500 sanction against Attorney  Keefe, ordered that he personally pay US Bank’s attorneys’ fees “for researching and  answering the amended initial brief,” and referred Attorney Keefe to the Florida Bar.^viii The  Court explained the sanction was commensurate with those imposed by other courts and  was warranted given the waste in judicial, administrative and attorney resources caused by  Attorney Keefe’s misuse of AI. Elaborating, the Court complained it was forced to “waste  time sloshing through bilge rather than analyzing cases on their merits.”^ix 

Just in case the multitude of preceding sanction cases did not provide adequate  notice, the Second DCA’s recent admonishment that it “may not be so gentle on attorney 

offenders in the future,” definitely leaves no doubt that the grace period on AI abuses has expired. Thankfully, Diaz Anselmo already implemented a robust policy detailing acceptable  and unacceptable uses of AI to ensure its clients are protected.

In a hurry? Click here for the key points.

1. Florida’s Second DCA summarily affirmed a declaratory judgment in favor of U.S. Bank without elaborating on the merits but wrote a lengthy opinion to explain the basis for sanctions it imposed against the appellant’s counsel, Kenneth Keefe, for “rampant use of hallucinated citations” which rendered the “legal representations” in appellant’s briefs untrustworthy. Cap. Standard, LLC v. Tchentsov, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D1719, at *1, 5 (Fla. 2d DCA August 21, 2026).

2. After providing a detailed analysis of pertinent procedural rules that Attorney Keefe violated, the Court imposed a $1500 sanction against Attorney Keefe, ordered that he personally pay US Bank’s attorneys’ fees “for researching and answering the amended initial brief,” and referred Attorney Keefe to the Florida Bar.x The Court explained the sanction was commensurate with those imposed by other courts and was warranted given the waste in judicial, administrative and attorney resources caused by Attorney Keefe’s misuse of AI.

3. Just in case the multitude of preceding sanction cases did not provide adequate notice, the Court’s recent admonishment that it “may not be so gentle on attorney offenders in the future,” definitely leaves no doubt that the grace period on AI abuses has expired. Thankfully, Diaz Anselmo already implemented a robust policy detailing acceptable and unacceptable uses of AI to ensure its clients are protected.

ⁱ Tchentsov, at *2-3. 

ⁱⁱ Tchentsov, at *2. 

ⁱⁱⁱ Tchentsov, at *5. 

^iv Tchentsov, at *6. 

^v Tchentsov, at *6-7. 

^vi Tchentsov, at *7-8. 

^vii Tchentsov, at *8. 

^viii Tchentsov, at *8-10. 

^ix Tchentsov, at *13. 

^x Tchentsov, at *8-10.

---

`

Headquarters:

499 NW 70th Avenue, Suite 309 

Plantation, FL 33317

Main: 954-564-0071

Fax: 954-564-9252