Eclectic Synergy, LLC v. Seredin
CA Florida (4d) · May 27, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA Florida (4d)
- Record ID
- eclectic-synergy-llc-v-seredin-2026-05-27
- Observed outcome
- The court summarily affirmed the trial court's order and sanctioned counsel by referring the matter to The Florida Bar for disciplinary action.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court sanctioned counsel for submitting fictitious and misrepresented legal authorities in a petition. Finding the attorney's explanations of clerical error non-credible, the court referred the matter to The Florida Bar for disciplinary action, emphasizing that counsel is responsible for the accuracy of all filings regardless of whether generative AI or human research was employed.
The court reasoned that counsel is responsible for the accuracy of all filings and cannot shift blame to paralegals or claim clerical error. It held that the submission of fictitious or fabricated case law is sanctionable regardless of whether it resulted from carelessness, misunderstanding, or the use of generative AI. The court further determined that the petition's misrepresentation of holdings and the filing of improper supplemental authority constituted a breach of the duty of candor and competence, necessitating a referral to The Florida Bar.
This case illustrates that courts hold attorneys strictly liable for the accuracy of their filings, regardless of whether errors stem from human research, paralegal work, or generative AI. It reinforces that citing non-existent or misrepresented authority constitutes a sanctionable breach of professional duty.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Contract
- Appellate
- Ordered To Show Cause
- AI attribution
- Alleged
- Recorded tool
- Generative artificial-intelligence tools
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appeal of a nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, redesignated as a nonfinal appeal, summarily affirmed, and counsel referred to The Florida Bar.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The court explicitly referenced generative artificial-intelligence tools in its discussion of sanctionable conduct.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.