Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesClerk of the Ct. v. Rangel
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 86/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Clerk of the Ct. v. Rangel

Florida CA · Aug 29, 2025

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court referred attorney J. Tony Lopez to The Florida Bar for disciplinary proceedings due to his filing of an answer brief containing non-existent case law, fictitious quotations, and misstated holdings, compounded by his failure to supervise his paralegal or verify the brief's contents.

Why the court cared
The court reasoned that sanctions were appropriate because the attorney admitted to filing a brief with fictitious authority and misquotes, failed to review the opposing party's reply brief that identified these errors, and failed to exercise professional judgment in supervising the work product produced by his paralegal.
Why it matters now
An answer brief with one fake case, 14 false quotes, and 9 misstated holdings draws an automatic bar referral, not a warning.

Why this matter is tracked

In Clerk of the Ct. v. Rangel, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal referred attorney J. Tony Lopez to The Florida Bar for disciplinary proceedings after he filed an answer brief containing fabricated case law, fictitious block quotations, and misstated holdings. The attorney admitted to relying on an independent contractor paralegal to draft the brief without verifying the cited authorities or reviewing the opposing party's reply brief, which had previously identified the errors. The court emphasized that attorneys remain responsible for all work product, regardless of whether it is generated by third parties or technological tools. The court granted the attorney's request to file an amended brief and continued oral argument to mitigate prejudice to the client.

Operational lesson

An answer brief with one fake case, 14 false quotes, and 9 misstated holdings draws an automatic bar referral, not a warning.

Record details

FloridaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore FLOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtFlorida CA
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit11th Circuit
DateAug 29, 2025
GE
AI toolGenerative artificial intelligence (implied context of paralegal-assisted drafting)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeThe court referred the attorney to The Florida Bar for disciplinary proceedings and sanctions.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionReferral to The Florida Bar for disciplinary proceedings.
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court explicitly discusses the dangers of generative AI in the context of the attorney's reliance on a paralegal.

Procedural posture

The court issued an order to show cause regarding sanctions, received the attorney's admission of misconduct, and subsequently ordered a referral to The Florida Bar.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Attorney admitted one cited authority in the answer brief is non-existent; court ordered copies of cited authorities and directed explanation.
  2. False Quotes: Case Law | Attorney admitted that 14 cited cases do not contain the quotations attributed to them in the answer brief; court demanded highlighted copies to verify quotations.
  3. Misrepresented: Case Law | Attorney admitted the answer brief misstated holdings in nine cited cases and inaccurately summarized many authorities.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Clerk of the Ct. v. Rangel?
The court referred attorney J. Tony Lopez to The Florida Bar for disciplinary proceedings due to his filing of an answer brief containing non-existent case law, fictitious quotations, and misstated holdings, compounded by his failure to supervise his paralegal or verify the brief's contents.
Why does Clerk of the Ct. v. Rangel matter for legal AI risk?
An answer brief with one fake case, 14 false quotes, and 9 misstated holdings draws an automatic bar referral, not a warning.
What does the public record establish about Clerk of the Ct. v. Rangel?
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 Clerk of the Ct. v. Rangel 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.