Career Resources

The Fourth District Court of Appeal ordered attorney Jaclyn R. Soroka to explain why she should not face sanctions.

The case involves filings in a family-law dispute. The court said the documents contained long and unfocused arguments.

However, the court said the cited cases were real. The issue was not fake legal authorities.

Instead, the judges questioned the quality of the arguments and the lawyer’s independent judgment.

The case sends a clear message to lawyers. AI can help with legal work, but attorneys remain responsible for what they file in court.

Key Takeaways

• AI does not replace lawyers. Attorneys remain responsible for court filings.
• Real citations are not enough. Legal arguments must also make sense.
• AI review must go further. Check accuracy, clarity, and legal reasoning.
• Florida has new AI rules. Rule 2.515 sets requirements for legal citations.
• Sanctions are not final. Soroka must explain why sanctions should not apply.

Florida Court Flags AI Filings

The dispute began with a Florida marriage dissolution case.

The case involves a 10-year-old child. Soroka represented the petitioner in the matter.

She later filed documents with the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The court denied her petition for extraordinary relief.

However, the judges also reviewed the quality of the filings. They raised concerns in their September 16 opinion.

The court said some arguments were lengthy and unfocused. It also described parts of the filings as confusing, false, and frivolous.

The judges said the documents appeared to contain what they called “AI slop.”

As a result, the court ordered Soroka to explain why sanctions should not be imposed.

The Court Says the Cases Were Real

The court made an important point about the filings.

The judges did not say that Soroka used fake cases. They also did not say that the cited legal authorities were nonexistent.

Instead, the cited cases were real.

The court’s concern involved how those cases were used. The judges questioned the reasoning behind the arguments.

This distinction is important for lawyers who use AI.

A citation can be real and still be used incorrectly. Therefore, checking citations is only one part of reviewing AI-generated legal work.

Lawyer Must Explain Potential Sanctions

The court gave Soroka 10 days to respond.

The judges also ordered her to prepare the response without using AI.

The court said possible sanctions could include a referral to the Florida Bar. Such a referral could lead to disciplinary review.

However, Soroka has not been sanctioned at this stage.

The court must first consider her response. It will then decide whether further action is appropriate.

Court Questions Attorney Judgment

The Fourth District also raised concerns about attorney judgment.

The judges said they suspected that the filings contained AI-generated material. They also warned about the effect of poor AI-assisted filings on the court system.

This concern goes beyond fake citations.

A lawyer can submit real cases and still produce a weak filing. For example, the arguments may not fit the facts or support the legal position.

Therefore, lawyers must review AI-assisted work carefully before filing it.

Florida Updates AI Filing Rules

The case comes as Florida courts adopt new rules for AI-related filings.

In May 2026, the Florida Supreme Court amended Rule 2.515. The rule requires attorneys who sign court filings to confirm that cited legal authorities exist and are accurately cited.

The change also allows sanctions for filings that violate the rule.

The amended rule took effect on June 15, 2026.

The rule addresses one major risk of generative AI. AI tools can sometimes create cases, quotes, or other legal material that does not exist.

However, the Soroka case raises a different concern.

The court said the cited cases were real. Instead, it questioned the quality of the legal arguments.

AI Slop vs. AI Hallucinations

The Florida case shows that lawyers face more than one AI risk.

What Is an AI Hallucination?

An AI hallucination happens when an AI system creates false information.

For example, a system may produce a case that does not exist. It may also create a fake quote from a real court decision.

These errors can create serious problems in legal filings.

What Is AI Slop?

AI slop refers to low-quality AI-generated content.

Such content may be long, unclear, repetitive, or poorly reasoned.

In this case, the Florida appeals court used the term “AI slop” while discussing filings it found problematic.

The cited cases were real. However, the court questioned the arguments built around those cases.

Therefore, lawyers should review more than citations.

They should also check whether the entire filing is clear, accurate, relevant, and supported by law.

Why It Matters for Law Firms

The ruling could affect how law firms use generative AI.

Many firms now use AI for legal research and drafting. Some also use it for document review and summarizing information.

However, AI tools can create risks when lawyers do not review the results closely.

Law firms may therefore need stronger AI policies.

Those policies can explain which tools lawyers may use. They can also set rules for confidential information and final document review.

AI Training Could Become More Important

Lawyers also need to understand the limits of AI.

An AI tool can produce polished legal writing. However, polished writing does not always mean good legal analysis.

For that reason, AI training should cover more than prompts.

Lawyers should learn how to check legal authorities. They should also learn how to test AI-generated reasoning.

Furthermore, attorneys should know how to identify unsupported claims and protect client information.

What Lawyers Can Learn

The Florida ruling offers several practical lessons.

1. Review Every AI-Assisted Filing

Lawyers should read every AI-assisted document before filing it.

A quick review may not catch weak arguments. Therefore, attorneys should examine the entire document.

2. Check Every Legal Citation

Lawyers should confirm that every cited case exists.

They should also make sure the case supports the argument.

Reading the actual decision is better than relying only on an AI summary.

3. Review the Legal Reasoning

Real cases can still support the wrong argument.

Therefore, lawyers should ask whether each citation fits the legal issue.

They should also check whether the argument makes sense from beginning to end.

4. Keep Human Judgment in Control

AI can help lawyers save time.

However, the attorney should make the final decisions about legal strategy.

The lawyer should also approve the final filing before it reaches the court.

5. Follow Court Rules

AI rules can differ between courts and states.

Lawyers should check local court rules before using AI in legal filings.

They should also review bar guidance and professional conduct requirements.

AI and the Legal Industry

Courts across the country continue to deal with AI-related legal problems.

Some cases involve fake citations or nonexistent authorities. This Florida case highlights another concern.

The problem can exist even when the cited cases are real.

Poor reasoning can still create problems for lawyers and courts. Consequently, attorney review remains essential.

Law firms may use AI to improve speed and efficiency. Nevertheless, lawyers must remain responsible for the final work.

For law students and new lawyers, this lesson is also important.

AI skills may become part of modern legal practice. At the same time, lawyers need to know when AI-generated work requires deeper review.

FAQs

What is AI slop in court filings?

AI slop is a term for poor-quality AI-generated or AI-assisted content.

In this case, the Florida appeals court used the term while criticizing legal filings that appeared to contain AI-generated material.

Did the lawyer cite fake cases?

No.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal said the cited cases were real.

Instead, the court questioned the reasoning and quality of the arguments based on those cases.

Did the court sanction the lawyer?

Not yet.

The court ordered Soroka to explain why sanctions should not be imposed.

The court will consider her response before deciding whether further action is needed.

Did the court confirm that the lawyer used AI?

No.

The court said it suspected that the filings contained AI-generated components.

The court’s concerns focused on the filings and the level of attorney judgment involved.

Can lawyers use AI for legal work?

AI can assist lawyers with tasks such as research and drafting.

However, lawyers remain responsible for reviewing the final work.

Attorneys should also follow the rules that apply to their court and jurisdiction.

Why does this case matter to law firms?

The case shows why law firms need strong AI review practices.

Lawyers should check AI-generated work for accuracy and sound reasoning. They should also verify legal authorities before filing documents.

Looking for your next legal opportunity? Explore the latest attorney and legal jobs on LawCrossing and find openings that match your skills and career goals.

See Also:

A Grim New Look at Lawyer Misery

The post Lawyer Under Fire Over ‘AI Slop’ Court Filing first appeared on JDJournal Blog.