Capital Standard, LLC v. U.S. Bank National Association
Fla. 2d DCA · Aug 21, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Maciejewski v. Holland, 441 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) for unrelated propositions (e.g., ratification), though the two-page opinion does not contain those propositions. Outcome: Attorney Keefe fined $1,500; ordered to pay U.S. Bank's appellate fees for researching and answering the amended initial brief (amount remanded to trial court); referred to The Florida Bar; offending briefs struck.. Attorney Kenneth Keefe relied on a generative AI tool that produced numerous AI "hallucinations" (fabricated cases, false quotations, and misstatements of existing authorities) across his amended initial brief and reply. The court issued a show-cause, found at least 46 specific hallucinations, ordered Keefe to produce supporting authorities, received no timely compliance, struck the offending briefs, and imposed sanctions: a $1,500 fine, an award of fees to U.S. Bank for researching and answering the amended brief (amount remanded for determination), and referral to The Florida Bar. The court based sanctions on violations of Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.515(d) and Fla. R. App. P. 9.210/9.410(a), noting the burden on courts and opposing parties and the duty of counsel to verify authorities.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies fake citations and fabricated quotes and records Attorney Keefe fined $1,500; ordered to pay U.S. Bank's appellate fees for researching and answering the amended initial brief (amount remanded to trial court); referred to The Florida Bar; offending briefs struck.. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes with Attorney Keefe fined $1,500; ordered to pay U.S. Bank's appellate fees for researching and answering the amended initial brief (amount remanded to trial court); referred to The Florida Bar; offending briefs struck. in Fla. 2d DCA. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Maciejewski v. Holland, 441 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) for unrelated propositions (e.g., ratification), though the two-page opinion does not contain those propositions. Outcome: Attorney Keefe fined $1,500; ordered to pay U.S. Bank's appellate fees for researching and answering the amended initial brief (amount remanded to trial court); referred to The Florida Bar; offending briefs struck.. Attorney Kenneth Keefe relied on a generative AI tool that produced numerous AI "hallucinations" (fabricated cases, false quotations, and misstatements of existing authorities) across his amended initial brief and reply. The court issued a show-cause, found at least 46 specific hallucinations, ordered Keefe to produce supporting authorities, received no timely compliance, struck the offending briefs, and imposed sanctions: a $1,500 fine, an award of fees to U.S. Bank for researching and answering the amended brief (amount remanded for determination), and referral to The Florida Bar. The court based sanctions on violations of Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.515(d) and Fla. R. App. P. 9.210/9.410(a), noting the burden on courts and opposing parties and the duty of counsel to verify authorities.
This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes with Attorney Keefe fined $1,500; ordered to pay U.S. Bank's appellate fees for researching and answering the amended initial brief (amount remanded to trial court); referred to The Florida Bar; offending briefs struck. in Fla. 2d DCA. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Attorney Keefe fined $1,500; ordered to pay U.S. Bank's appellate fees for researching and answering the amended initial brief (amount remanded to trial court); referred to The Florida Bar; offending briefs struck.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Maciejewski v. Holland, 441 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) for unrelated propositions (e.g., ratification), though the two-page opinion does not contain those propositions.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Attributed a nonexistent quotation about 'fundamental error' to Hart Properties, Inc. v. Slack and provided a pincite that does not contain the quote.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Used Miami Country Day School v. Bakst, 641 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (a homestead/houseboat case) to support broad propositions about good-faith acquisition and detrimental reliance not found in that opinion.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Presented Board of Regents v. Wilson, 365 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) as authority though the court identified it as a fabricated/nonexistent case.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Gonzalez v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 95 So. 3d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) as an all-purpose authority for matters (e.g., bona fide purchaser principles) that the opinion does not address.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Capital Standard, LLC v. U.S. Bank National Association?
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Maciejewski v. Holland, 441 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) for unrelated propositions (e.g., ratification), though the two-page opinion does not contain those propositions. Outcome: Attorney Keefe fined $1,500; ordered to pay U.S. Bank's appellate fees for researching and answering the amended initial brief (amount remanded to trial court); referred to The Florida Bar; offending briefs struck.. Attorney Kenneth Keefe relied on a generative AI tool that produced numerous AI "hallucinations" (fabricated cases, false quotations, and misstatements of existing authorities) across his amended initial brief and reply. The court issued a show-cause, found at least 46 specific hallucinations, ordered Keefe to produce supporting authorities, received no timely compliance, struck the offending briefs, and imposed sanctions: a $1,500 fine, an award of fees to U.S. Bank for researching and answering the amended brief (amount remanded for determination), and referral to The Florida Bar. The court based sanctions on violations of Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.515(d) and Fla. R. App. P. 9.210/9.410(a), noting the burden on courts and opposing parties and the duty of counsel to verify authorities.
- Why does Capital Standard, LLC v. U.S. Bank National Association matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes with Attorney Keefe fined $1,500; ordered to pay U.S. Bank's appellate fees for researching and answering the amended initial brief (amount remanded to trial court); referred to The Florida Bar; offending briefs struck. in Fla. 2d DCA. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Capital Standard, LLC v. U.S. Bank National Association?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this Capital Standard, LLC v. U.S. Bank National Association summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.