More Lawyers Sanctioned for Improper Use of AI

By Jordi C. Martínez-Cid

More local AI-related news as administrative orders have come out sanctioning attorneys.

In Multiphone Latin America, Inc. v. Millicom International Cellular S.A., No. 25-cv-23249, Chief Judge Altonaga found that the brief cited two hallucinated Florida appellate cases that appear not to exist and quoted language absent from the cases it cited. The lawyers’ proposed sur-reply then misquoted more cases, in places presenting Westlaw headnotes as quotations from the opinions themselves.

In Dubinin v. Papazian, No. 25-cv-23877, Judge Ruiz identified at least ten fabricated or misrepresented citations and quotations in the plaintiff’s complaint and response brief. The Florida lawyer who signed it said a New York lawyer had drafted it. The New York lawyer had never appeared or sought pro hac vice admission, and she said a legal assistant had used AI.

Administrative Order 2026-87 and 2026-95 referred the lawyers in those cases to the Peer Review Committee and The Florida Bar. The lawyers had to take CLEs, pay monetary sanctions, and write letters of apology. Continuing moral of the story is do not be “that guy” (or gal). As in Dubinin, do not rely on out-of-state counsel to ensure compliance with the rules.

Judge Gayles tosses Trump’s suit against the Wall Street Journal: “Grasping at straws”

By David Oscar Markus

Judge Darrin Gayles dismissed President Trump’s defamation case against the Wall Street Journal on Friday with prejudice.  Here's the Order.

The suit was over the Journal’s July 2025 story about the birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein. Trump says he didn’t write it. He sued Dow Jones, News Corp., Rupert Murdoch, Robert Thomson, and the two reporters.

The order opens with New York Times v. Sullivan: “fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government.” 

Trump’s main theory was that his denial should have stopped the story. The court didn’t buy it:

“In effect, President Trump argues that once he declared the Letter a ‘fake,’ Defendants should have disregarded everything else they learned in their investigation and not published the story. But that is not what the actual malice standard requires and runs afoul of the First Amendment.” (p. 15)

If that were the law, the court said, “any time a public figure or his team denies an accusation, journalists would be immediately blocked from publishing negative or contradictory press.” (p. 15) The Journal had also printed the denial, in Trump’s own words.

On the attacks against the reporting itself: “Grasping at straws, the Amended Complaint attempts to manufacture flaws with the investigation.” (p. 16) The court called the Journal’s work “a thoughtful and detailed investigation.” (p. 15)

Trump also leaned on the Journal’s follow-up piece comparing signatures, arguing his signature “could not be more different” from the one on the letter. The court pointed out that the same piece “contains several examples where President Trump’s actual signature and sketches are similar to those in the Letter.” (p. 18)

Bob Martinez's Next Project

By John R. Byrne

Before he retired, my dad was a longtime lawyer here in Miami who worked downtown. One day, while making his morning pilgrimage north on US-1, his car unexpectedly broke down. As he stood stranded on the sidewalk, wearing a full suit in sweltering heat, another car pulled over. The driver rolled down the window, and said, "Hey, Bob, looks like you're in a bit of bind. Can I give you a lift?"

The driver was Bob Martinez. My dad and Bob weren't longtime friends. In fact, they'd only met once or twice before (I think my dad was surprised that Bob remembered his name). But that tells you a lot about the kind of guy Bob is. Yes, he's one of our living legal legends. US Attorney under President George H.W. Bush. A distinguished career in private practice at one of our country’s best Plaintiff’s firms, Colson Hicks Eidson, where he most recently helped secure a victory at the United States Supreme Court. But, at his core, he's a person who wants to help people. And, now, he is focusing on an issue where his help is needed: the security of our federal judges. 

Threats against our judges are at an all-time high. And it’s an equal opportunity danger. Judges appointed by Republicans have been threatened. Judges appointed by Democrats have been threatened. And it seems like every day it gets worse. It’s unclear what we can do about it. But that’s not stopping Bob. Aided by Judges Bloom and Seitz, Bob has recruited a team of lawyers to tackle this issue. The idea is for the lawyers to come together and brainstorm different approaches to addressing this alarming trend. My own idea is sort of a “scared straight” approach. A series of short, social media-friendly ads that, in stark terms, informs the public of the serious criminal consequences that flow from threatening a judge. I'd like to think that targeted social media advertising could get that message to some of the people who most need to hear it.

Check out Bob's recent op-ed on this topic in the Miami Herald. And if you have ideas about how to help, please contact Bob at bob@colson.com.

Judicial Conference Members Call for Investigation of Judge Williams (UPDATED)

By Jordi C. Martínez-Cid

We live in an increasingly politicized world. Last week, on October 22, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and Subcommittee Chairman Darrell Issa wrote to the Judicial Conference of the United States asking it to review Judge Kathleen M. Williams’s order in the Trump v. IRS lawsuit. The Judge found that the President’s $10 billion suit against the IRS and Treasury Department, both of which President Trump ostensibly runs, was collusive and imposed sanctions on his lawyers. The chairmen want a report from the Judicial Conference on November 5, and their letter can be found here.

Putting aside the politics of it, whatever happens should be interesting from a legal and procedural perspective. The letter invokes Canons 2, 3, and 5 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. It asks the Conference to consider referring the matter to the Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit. Presuming the Conference ultimately files a complaint, it will go before Chief Judge William Pryor of the Eleventh Circuit. This would be, by my count, the third high-profile misconduct complaint to go before him this year: the one involving the judge accused of having sex in chambers, this recent one, and potentially this one.

As you likely know, Judge Williams’ order holds that the parties were never adverse, finds that the suit was brought “to gain the imprimatur of judicial legitimacy for a ‘settlement’ that had no viable basis in law or fact,” and imposes sanctions under Rule 11 and the court’s inherent authority. Those negatively effected appealed, and requests for stay were denied by both Judge Williams and an Eleventh Circuit panel. The appeal remains pending.

It will be interesting to see whether Chief Judge Pryor will discuss the underlying arguments of the letter (or whatever might ultimately be put in the complaint) or whether he will dismiss that complaint for being “directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling.” 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(ii). Last year, regarding the misconduct complaint against Chief Judge James Boasberg of the District of Columbia, the Chief Judge of the Sixth Circuit did the latter, and dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction finding that the allegations were related to the merits. Whatever Chief Judge Pryor does, it will make news and--like seemingly everything else--it will be politicized. Hopefully, like Judge Middlebrook's million-dollar-sanction order against Trump, this too will blow over. I should note, however, that there is a pending petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court on the Middlebrooks order.

UPDATE BY DOM — Blog privilege here by updating Jordi’s post with my own thoughts.  The complaint is B.S. and pretty outrageous.  Disagreement with a judge’s decision is not a basis to file a complaint.  I’m sure it will be quickly dismissed.  Judge Williams is being honored tonight with the Judge Hoeveler award.  It’s a wonderful honor and well-deserved.  And yes, I’m biased as Judge Williams was my former boss. 

Comey and the waiverless information

By David Oscar Markus

DOJ charged James Comey again today. Third time. This one is a two-count information in D.C. alleging he leaked national defense information in October 2016. It was filed under seal on October 5, 2026. No grand jury. No waiver. DOJ says the point is to toll the statute of limitations while it keeps investigating.

Here is the information. Here is Comey’s motion to dismiss. And here is the government’s response.

DOJ defends not going to the grand jury as a “widely recognized practice.” 

During COVID, grand juries in our district stopped meeting. Prosecutors filed waiverless informations to beat the clock, and about ten defendants got caught up in it. I argued one of those cases, United States v. B.G.G. (I wrote about it here.)

In B.G.G., the government filed an information against Dr. Bart Gatz three days before the statute ran. It knew he would not waive indictment. It served him at 6:33 p.m. on the last day. Then it waited. Nearly three years later, it got an indictment.

Judge Middlebrooks rightfully didn’t buy it.  An unconsented information does not toll the statute. The government had admitted the information could not start a prosecution. Its only job was to stop the clock. Big props to the Judge. He got it right.  It was such a powerful order that the government did not appeal it, and instead chose to defend judges who went the other way. And in 2025 the Eleventh Circuit sided with the government in United States v. Webster. Even there, a concurring judge warned about prosecutorial manipulation and pointed to Gatz as the example.

In these cases, there was a pandemic. The grand juries were shut down. Comey’s information was filed in October 2026 when grand juries are available.

Comey also has an argument the pandemic cases didn’t. The five-year statute, § 3282, talks about an information being “instituted.” The ten-year espionage statute does not. It requires an indictment. So the five-year clock ran long ago, and the ten-year one demands a grand jury. The Fifth Amendment requires a grand jury for a felony unless the defendant waives. An information that can’t be prosecuted shouldn’t be able to freeze the clock. And if you can’t get a grand jury to indict in ten years, that tells you something.

Court Orders President Trump to Sit for Deposition

 By John R. Byrne

Ever taken the deposition of a sitting president? Me neither. But some lawyer for the BBC may soon get the chance.

We've covered President Trump's $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the BBC before. Yesterday, Magistrate Judge Lett ordered the president to sit for a deposition by December 11 or face sanctions, including potentially the dismissal of his lawsuit.

Off the top of my head, I thought Bill Clinton was the only other sitting president to have given a deposition (quite famously so, although his remark about the definition of "is" actually came during later grand jury testimony). Turns out I was wrong. Presidents Ulysses S. Grant, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter all gave depositions while in office.

We'll see what happens. Article here. 

Should judges be elected or appointed? (UPDATED -- COFFEE NOW PERMITTED IN STATE CIVIL COURTHOUSE!)

 By David Oscar Markus

Since we are in election season in Florida, and we have judges on the ballot, I've been thinking about this question again.  There are, of course, plusses and minuses to both systems.  One plus for elections and something I've noticed a lot recently -- state judges are by and large just nicer than federal judges and treat the lawyers better.  I guess that's no surprise since they have to run for office.  And that's generally true for state judges that end up on the federal bench even though they don't need to run again.  Less robe-itis.  

Speaking of state, gave you all been in the new state civil courthouse?  It's pretty nice!  I wonder if the criminal courthouse will ever get an upgrade.  One not-so-great thing about the new state civil courthouse -- you can't bring in coffee.  The only liquid you can bring in is in a bottle.  (UPDATE -- Thanks to Chief Judge Fajardo Orshan, this critical problem has now been fixed! Coffee is now permitted!  THANK YOU CHIEF!)

Sorry for the rambling stream of consciousness this morning.  

What do you like -- elections or appointments?

Pro Se Law Clerk Opportunities

By Jordi C. Martínez-Cid

Gone are the days when our district would designate a particular magistrate judge who, along with his or her clerks, would handle certain pro se and inmate petitions. Those cases are now distributed among the district court judges, who in turn, have designated pro se law clerks.

The number of pro se petitions has grown exponentially and the district is in need of more talented law clerks. There are currently three open spots available and, if you are interested, I would encourage you to apply. The position is a good one in its own right (including the pay), but it is also a path to a more traditional law clerk experience. A handful of judges have already hired their pro se clerks to serve as term clerks.

Details for the openings can be found here: https://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/sites/flsd/files/jobs/2026-JDS-21%20Pro%20Se%20Law%20Clerk.pdf.

There are also other openings which may be of interest to the community, including term clerkships, listed here: https://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/job-listings.