Career Resources

A Florida appeals court has referred attorney Jaclyn Soroka to the Florida Bar for possible discipline. Judges criticized her court filings as “AI slop,” raising concerns about artificial intelligence in legal work.

On October 21, 2026, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal rejected Soroka’s response to a possible sanctions order. The judges said her lengthy response failed to address their main concerns.

Unlike many AI-related court cases, this dispute did not focus mainly on fake legal citations. Instead, the judges questioned the quality of Soroka’s arguments and her use of independent legal judgment.

Soroka said she reviewed her work. However, she admitted that one filing contained a false quote from an earlier court decision. She blamed the error on human error and time pressure.

The case highlights a key rule for lawyers: They remain responsible for their court filings, even when they use AI tools.

Key Takeaways

• Florida Bar referral: The appeals court referred Jaclyn Soroka for possible professional discipline.
• Judicial criticism: Judges questioned the length, focus, and quality of her filings.
• AI concerns: The dispute focused on legal reasoning, not just fake citations.
• Admitted error: Soroka acknowledged a false quote in one filing. She blamed human error and time pressure.
• Professional responsibility: Lawyers remain accountable for the documents they sign and submit.
• Law firm impact: Firms should review AI-assisted work and train staff on its risks.
• Legal education: Law students need strong research and writing skills to assess AI-generated content.
• Disciplinary status: The referral does not prove misconduct or impose a final penalty.

The case sends a clear message to the legal industry: AI can assist lawyers, but it cannot replace professional judgment. Every court filing must contain accurate facts, relevant arguments, and sound legal reasoning.

Florida Lawyer Faces Discipline Referral

The case stems from Lisandrillo v. Palozzi, a family law dispute in Broward County, Florida.

Soroka represented Lorie Jean Lisandrillo in a marriage dissolution case. The dispute also involved parenting arrangements, visitation, and a guardian ad litem.

On September 16, 2026, the Fourth District Court of Appeal denied Soroka’s request for a writ of prohibition. The court also criticized her filings and ordered her to explain why she should not face sanctions.

The judges raised concerns about the length and quality of her documents. They described some arguments as confusing, unsupported, and difficult to follow.

On October 21, the court rejected Soroka’s response and referred the matter to the Florida Bar.

The referral does not prove professional misconduct. It also does not impose a final penalty. Instead, it allows the Florida Bar to review the matter and decide whether further action is needed.

Judges Criticize AI-Related Legal Filings

The court’s September opinion described Soroka’s filings as lengthy and unfocused. The judges also criticized arguments they viewed as frivolous or inconsistent with the court record.

However, the court distinguished this case from disputes involving fake legal authorities.

The cited cases existed. Still, the judges questioned how Soroka used them. Their concerns focused on her reasoning and the way she presented her arguments.

This distinction matters to lawyers who use AI to draft motions, petitions, and other court documents.

Checking citations is essential. However, real cases do not guarantee sound legal arguments. A filing can still contain weak reasoning, irrelevant points, or claims without factual support.

Therefore, lawyers must review the substance of AI-assisted work. Checking citations alone is not enough.

Why Judges Questioned Her Arguments

The appeals court reviewed several filings in the family law dispute.

According to the court’s opinion, Soroka filed a 41-page document seeking several forms of relief. She later submitted an 11-page emergency motion and three motions in limine.

She also filed a 33-page motion to disqualify the trial judge. Her later appeal petition reached 61 pages and challenged several rulings.

The judges questioned whether the arguments justified such lengthy filings. They also found that some claims conflicted with the court record.

Their concerns went beyond document length. Courts need clear arguments that explain the law and apply it to the facts.

Long filings can make that task harder when they include weak or irrelevant points. As a result, judges may struggle to identify the issues that matter most.

AI Filing Concerns Go Beyond Fake Citations

Many AI-related court cases involve fake cases, false quotes, or legal authorities that do not exist.

The Florida dispute raised another concern. The judges questioned whether Soroka’s filings showed independent legal analysis.

Their September opinion distinguished the case from disputes focused on fake legal authorities. Instead, the court examined the quality and structure of her arguments.

That distinction matters because legal accuracy involves more than checking whether a case exists.

Lawyers must confirm that each decision supports their claims. They must also connect the law to the facts and explain why the court should grant the requested relief.

Even valid citations cannot fix a filing that lacks clear reasoning.

Soroka Defends Work, Admits Filing Error

Soroka disputed the court’s criticism. She maintained that she had used her own legal judgment.

In her response, she said she reviewed her work and checked her sources. She also denied handing her professional duties over to AI.

However, the appeals court found her 82-page response unpersuasive. The judges said it failed to address their main concerns.

Soroka also admitted that a motion to disqualify the trial judge contained a false quote from an earlier appeals court decision.

She blamed the mistake on human error and pressure from a tight deadline.

The court also questioned her use of an unofficial rough transcript. Soroka had relied on it to support a claim that the trial judge mocked her by mispronouncing her name.

According to the October 21 order, the transcript contained many misspellings involving several people. Soroka continued to defend her argument despite those problems.

The judges concluded that the matter deserved the Florida Bar’s attention. They referred the case for possible disciplinary action.

However, the referral is not a final finding of misconduct. The Florida Bar may now review the matter through its disciplinary process.

AI Filing Lessons for Lawyers

The Florida case highlights a growing challenge for lawyers who use generative AI.

These tools can help lawyers organize information, summarize documents, and prepare early drafts. However, they cannot replace legal analysis.

Lawyers must decide whether each argument is relevant and supported by evidence. They must also confirm that the law supports the result they seek.

In addition, attorneys should check court rules and follow professional standards.

Citation Checks Alone Are Not Enough

Lawyers must review more than citations when using AI to prepare legal documents.

A careful review should cover six areas:

• Legal authorities: Confirm that each case exists and supports the argument.
• Facts: Check every claim against the court record and reliable sources.
• Legal reasoning: Make sure the analysis connects the law to the facts.
• Relevance: Remove arguments that do not help the client’s case.
• Court rules: Check deadlines, filing rules, and required procedures.
• Writing quality: Remove repetition, unclear passages, and unsupported claims.

These steps can help lawyers catch errors that AI tools may miss.

Moreover, polished writing does not guarantee sound reasoning. A document may read well but still make weak legal arguments.

Lawyers Remain Responsible for AI-Assisted Documents

Lawyers cannot transfer their professional duties to an AI system.

When an attorney signs and files a document, the attorney remains responsible for its contents. The Florida case highlights the importance of that duty.

Law firms should set clear rules for reviewing AI-assisted work. These rules can include source checks, attorney review, and training on AI’s limits.

Firms should also protect confidential client information when using AI tools. They should review any court rules on AI use and disclosure.

These steps can reduce errors, limit legal costs, and protect a firm’s reputation.

How the Case Affects Legal Careers

The dispute also offers lessons for law firms, recruiters, and future attorneys.

Many law firms are exploring AI to improve productivity. However, faster drafting does not always produce better work.

A long draft may need major edits if its arguments lack focus. Lawyers may also spend extra time correcting errors and checking unsupported claims.

For that reason, firms should judge AI by the quality of the final work, not just drafting speed.

Legal Writing Skills Remain Essential

Law students and new lawyers need strong research, writing, and analytical skills.

They must learn to find relevant cases, understand legal rules, assess evidence, and build clear arguments.

AI can support these tasks. However, lawyers must still make their own decisions.

Law schools and employers can teach students how to review AI-generated content. Training should cover source checks, legal research, confidentiality, and professional ethics.

Legal recruiters should also assess candidates’ core legal skills. Familiarity with AI should not replace those skills.

Ultimately, effective lawyers must apply the law, communicate clearly, and protect their clients’ interests.

Courts Scrutinize AI Legal Work

The referral comes amid wider concerns about AI use in court.

Judges have encountered cases involving fake citations, false quotes, and unsupported facts. The Florida dispute shows that they may also question the quality of legal reasoning.

Some Florida judicial circuits have adopted rules on AI use in court filings. These rules may require disclosure or verification, depending on the court.

Lawyers should check the rules that apply to each case. They should not assume a document meets professional standards just because its citations are correct or its language sounds polished.

The legal profession must balance AI’s benefits with its duties to clients and courts.

The Soroka referral reinforces that responsibility. AI can assist with legal work, but lawyers remain accountable for the arguments they present and the documents they sign.

FAQs

1. Why Was Jaclyn Soroka Referred for Possible Discipline?

Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal referred attorney Jaclyn Soroka to the Florida Bar after criticizing her filings in a family law dispute.

The judges questioned the length, focus, and quality of her arguments. They also described the filings as “AI slop.”

The dispute focused largely on the substance and structure of the arguments, rather than fake legal authorities. The court also rejected Soroka’s response to an order asking why she should not face sanctions.

The Florida Bar can now review the matter and decide whether further action is warranted. However, the referral does not prove misconduct or impose a final penalty.

2. What Does “AI Slop” Mean in a Legal Filing?

In this case, “AI slop” describes legal writing that judges viewed as unclear or poorly reasoned.

The term does not simply mean a typo or an incorrect citation. It can describe writing that is lengthy, repetitive, unfocused, or hard to follow.

For example, a filing might cite real cases but explain them incorrectly. It might also include arguments that do not support the result the lawyer seeks.

The Florida court questioned whether Soroka’s filings showed independent legal judgment. The judges looked beyond the question of whether the cited cases existed.

“AI slop” is the court’s description of the filings. It is not a formal legal category that automatically proves misconduct.

3. Did Soroka Use Artificial Intelligence to Prepare Her Filings?

Soroka disputed the suggestion that she had handed her professional duties over to AI. She said she reviewed her work and checked her sources.

However, the court questioned the quality and structure of her filings. The judges raised concerns about the level of independent legal analysis.

Using AI does not automatically amount to professional misconduct. The key issues include how the lawyer used the tool and whether the final work met legal and ethical standards.

Lawyers must review AI-generated text before filing it. They should check citations, confirm facts, and ensure that each argument has a sound legal basis.

The referral allows the Florida Bar to review the matter. It does not establish a final disciplinary outcome.

4. Were Soroka’s Legal Citations Fabricated?

The court’s main concern was not that all the cited cases were fake. The judges acknowledged that the authorities existed but questioned the quality of the arguments.

However, Soroka admitted that one motion contained a false quote from an earlier appeals court decision. She blamed the mistake on human error and time pressure.

This distinction matters. A real case can still be quoted incorrectly or used to support a claim it does not establish.

Lawyers should compare quotes with the original court opinions. They must also confirm that each case supports the point they want to make.

Checking citations is essential, but it is only one part of a full review.

5. Can Lawyers Use AI to Draft Court Filings?

Lawyers can use AI tools to assist with research, drafting, summaries, and document review, subject to applicable rules and professional duties.

However, AI use does not remove the lawyer’s responsibility for the final document.

Before filing AI-assisted work, lawyers should check legal authorities, facts, quotes, and reasoning. They should also confirm that the document follows court rules and supports the client’s position.

Confidentiality is another concern. Attorneys should understand how an AI tool handles information before entering sensitive client details.

Some courts may also have rules on AI disclosure or verification. Lawyers should check the requirements that apply to their cases.

6. Can a Lawyer Face Discipline if Most Citations Are Correct?

Yes. Correct citations do not guarantee that a filing meets professional standards.

Lawyers must present arguments with a sound legal basis. They must also describe the facts accurately and follow court procedures.

A filing may raise concerns if it includes unsupported claims, irrelevant arguments, or faulty reasoning. The same applies when a lawyer misrepresents a court decision.

The Florida case shows why judges examine the substance of legal arguments, not just the cited authorities.

Still, disciplinary action depends on the facts and applicable professional rules. A referral alone does not establish a violation.

7. How Can Law Firms Prevent AI-Related Filing Errors?

Law firms should set clear rules for reviewing AI-assisted work.

First, attorneys should check citations and quotes against original sources. Next, they should compare factual claims with the court record.

Lawyers must also make sure their arguments connect the law to the facts. They should remove repeated points and material that does not support the client’s case.

Firms should train staff on confidentiality, data security, and AI’s limits. Supervisors should review high-risk filings before submission.

These steps can help firms use AI while reducing errors and protecting clients.

8. What Does the Case Mean for Law Students and New Attorneys?

The case shows why legal research, writing, and critical thinking remain essential.

Law students and new lawyers may use AI to summarize material or prepare early drafts. However, they must learn to check the results and develop their own analysis.

A strong legal argument identifies the issue, explains the relevant law, and applies that law to the facts.

Law schools and employers can teach responsible AI use alongside traditional legal skills. Training should include source checks, confidentiality, and professional ethics.

Recruiters should also assess candidates’ legal abilities, rather than relying only on their knowledge of technology.

9. Does the Florida Bar Referral Mean Soroka Has Been Suspended?

No. The October 21, 2026, order referred Soroka to the Florida Bar for possible discipline. It did not announce a suspension or disbarment.

A referral allows the relevant conduct to receive further review. Any later action will depend on the applicable disciplinary process.

Readers should distinguish between judicial criticism, a disciplinary referral, a formal finding of misconduct, and a final penalty.

These are separate stages. Reporting that a lawyer has been disciplined when a court has only made a referral would overstate the outcome.

Any later development should be checked against reliable court or Florida Bar records.

10. Why Is This Case Important for AI in Legal Practice?

The case shows that courts may question AI-assisted work even when fake citations are not the main issue.

AI tools can help lawyers process information and prepare drafts faster. However, speed cannot replace sound legal reasoning.

Courts need clear filings that state the issues, describe the facts accurately, and explain why the law supports the requested result.

Law firms must balance efficiency with careful review. Law schools must also teach future attorneys how to assess AI-generated content.

For clients, the quality of legal representation remains the central concern.

The broader lesson is clear: AI can support legal work, but attorneys must remain responsible for every document they submit.

Looking for your next legal career opportunity? Explore attorney jobs, law firm openings, and legal positions on LawCrossing today..

See Also:

Discover the Best Industries for In-House Lawyers

The post Florida Lawyer Under Review for AI-Generated Court Filing first appeared on JDJournal Blog.