AI Hallucinations Abound

Since the advent of generative artificial intelligence and its ever-evolving use in the legal research arena, there have been troubling episodes of hallucinations with fake case citations catching both lawyers and judges off guard. We started scratching our heads a couple of years ago following the wide public release of large language models and a well-publicized federal aviation case resulting in $5,000 of sanctions. Dozens more expensive examples of false statements to courts followed, though recently America's largest injury firm was only hit with a grand. Some got pleadings stricken, public reprimands, disqualification or joint and several sanctions under Rule 11, while others were referred their state bar for disciplinary proceedings and of course, all were embarrassed. This summer, a state appellate court even caught a trial judge who decided a case based on fake law and a federal judge in a securities case had to be told by a white shoe law firm that her opinion contained hallucinated cases resulting in a withdrawn opinion. As Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wisely said, "Any use of AI requires caution and humility." It is interesting to note that we are not alone in the world with this problem, though the USA leads with at least 136 such incidents to date. Some counsel fared better by being contrite and falling on their proverbial sword, being bench-slapped with smaller sanctions. Many more seemed rather recalcitrant and argued mistaken briefs were filed or that their work product (despite being vendor checked through subscription with well-known legal service providers) should somehow save them from the same fate. Now these cases have been conveniently catalogued-- on an almost daily basis-- by Damien Charlotin at this handy hallucination link-- https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/

11th Cir.: Arb Clickwraps Valid in Fla.

The 100 year-old Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires courts to enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms. But arbitration is a matter of contract, and the FAA does not allow a court to compel arbitration unless it is satisfied that the parties agreed to arbitrate. If the existence of the agreement is not genuinely disputed, the court must compel arbitration.These principles apply equally to so-called “clickwrap” agreements, in which users assent to terms by clicking a button near a disclosure referencing those terms. Under Florida law, the central question is whether the parties mutually assented to be bound. In the Eleventh Circuit's recent ruling, Lamonaco v. Experian Inform. Sols., Inc., 2025 WL 1831283 (11th Cir. July 3, 2025), because Experian submitted competent and unrebutted evidence of an agreement to arbitrate, the federal district court for the Middle District of Florida erred in denying its motion to compel arbitration. Relying heavily on Bazemore v. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, 837 F3d. 1325 (11th Cir. 2016), appellee argued that a declaration was insufficient to prove that she had agreed to arbitrate her claims. She also claimed that Experian had by its litigation conduct waived its right to insist on arbitration. The district court denied the motion to compel arbitration, finding that the declaration submitted in support of the motion offered only conclusory assertions and rested on business records not attached to the declaration. The district court also held that Experian had waived its right to insist on arbitration which it then appealed. The Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that the district court erred on both issues. Because the arbitration agreement delegated to the arbitrator “all disputes over the interpretation, applicability, or enforceability of the arbitration agreement,” and an amendment to the agreement stated specifically that the delegation included questions of waiver, whether Experian waived its arbitration right was for the arbitrator to decide. See more here-- https://tinyurl.com/2u45se7k and https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202411270.pdf