Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, AI NEWS—Eleventh Circuit sanctions attorney for hallucinated citations and quotations in reply brief in employment discrimination appeal, (Jul 13, 2026)

By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

The court has also referred the attorney to the Committee on Lawyer Qualifications and Conduct “for any disciplinary actions that the Committee deems appropriate.”

In an appeal from a decision in favor of the Florida Department of Corrections on a former employee’s claims of retaliation under Title VII and the ADA, not only did the Eleventh Circuit rule against the employee on the merits of the appeal, but the employee’s attorney is walking away with sanctions and a disciplinary referral because the reply brief included hallucinated citations and quotes attributed to the appeals court.

On the merits of the case, the Eleventh Circuit rejected the employee’s argument that the lower court erred in granting summary judgment for the employer, explaining that the employee was unable to demonstrate with competent evidence or inferences in his favor that his EEOC complaint or his request for accommodation caused his demotion and termination, rather than his disciplinary infractions and excessive absenteeism.

However, the largest and most impactful part of the appeals court’s brief opinion dealt with the motion for sanctions filed by the employer during the appeals process. The employer moved for sanctions seeking attorneys’ fees and to strike portions of the employee’s reply brief, arguing that the brief cited two nonexistent court opinions and at least five nonexistent quotations from the Eleventh Circuit’s opinions.

Employee’s attorney failed to explain. Counsel for the employee argued that he withdrew any erroneous statements from the reply brief, rendering the employer’s motion as “moot.” He also argued that the errors were not made in bad faith and that the reply brief’s arguments were still legally correct. Counsel was allowed an opportunity to explain where the defective cases and quotes originated, but he only repeated that he was unable to identify a verified source and stated that “the challenged material did not come from a verified review of the cited opinions.” Counsel, the court explained, did not “provide an explanation for how the opinions appeared in the reply brief.”

Lack of candor about use of AI. To that statement, the court added a footnote explaining, “It seems as though counsel has relied on generative artificial intelligence (AI) in writing his reply brief, as seen through the ‘hallucinated’ cases.” This lack of “forthcoming candor” was a disappointment to the court, which noted that courts worldwide are facing similar problems. “Presumably,” it noted, “counsel wrote the reply brief, [] and should thus be familiar with how he came to rely on the nonexistent authorities. Whether the appellant’s citations were generated by AI, as we suspect, or simply made up by counsel, we nevertheless expect accurate representations from any attorney appearing before this Court.” [footnote omitted] In the omitted footnote, the court explained that clients should be able to look to their attorneys’ certifying signature as proof that they have “endeavored to meet the baseline level of competency.” It wrote, “Whether counsel wrote the reply brief, relied on a non-lawyer for drafting, or used a notoriously unreliable generative AI platform, counsel’s signature verifies that his contentions ‘are warranted by existing law.’”

The court also noted that the Florida Supreme Court amended the state’s rules of general practice and administration to address the use of generative AI, with the amendment requiring signers of court filings to represent that all legal authorities included in the filing exist and are accurately cited.

Sanctions awarded. Explaining that it appeared that counsel had “failed to use the required ‘legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation [at hand]’ under Model Code of Pro. Conduct R. 1.1. (Am. Bar Ass’n 1980),” the court granted the employer’s related motions, including for attorneys’ fees related to preparing the motion to strike, and it also referred counsel for the employee to the Committee on Lawyer Qualifications and Conduct for any discipline it deems appropriate.

The case is No. 25-11166.

News: AINews LitigationNewsTrends AttorneysFees Retaliation RaceDiscrimination DisabilityDiscrimination Procedure RemediesDamages GCNNews