The published opinion in Parnell v. Florida Department of Corrections begins with "Marion Parnell, Jr., an African-American male represented by counsel," appealing Judge Moreno's grant of summary judgment. Affirming Judge Moreno seemed to be an easy call as that part of the opinion may not even be a full page long. The section dealing with Mr. Parnell's counsel, however, was much longer.
Respondent asked for the appeals court to impose sanctions under its inherent authority because the reply bief "cites two non-existent court opinions and at least five non-existent quotations from our opinions." The Eleventh Circuit requested supplemental briefing on the issue of bad faith and, though Respondent's counsel did respond, they did not explain how the halluciniations appeared in the brief. The court awarded sanctions and held that counsel "has failed to use the required legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably nbecessary for the representation at hand." Ouch.
The moral of the story is one every should know, especially by now, but always carefully verify the use of artificial intelligence. And if you get caught, come clean and beg for mercy. Deal with any malpractice claims at a later date.
1 comment:
You should also mention the sanction of Anthony Sabatini in another published opinion issued the same day: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202411033.pdf
Post a Comment