Lisandrillo v. Palozzi
Fla. 4th DCA · Sep 16, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Misrepresented: Legal Norm | The filing asserted that a motion to disqualify automatically stayed all trial-court proceedings. The court characterized this as a recurring AI-hallucinated argument and held that the assertion was legally mistaken. Outcome: Petition denied; counsel ordered to show cause, without using AI, why sanctions including possible Florida Bar referral should not be imposed.. The court found that counsel’s filings appeared to contain AI-generated components, including convoluted and frivolous arguments, alleged events contrary to the official record, and legal gibberish. The court expressly noted that the cited cases were real and that the matter did not involve hallucinated law or false legal citations. It rejected the petition and disqualification motion, emphasizing that a judge cannot be disqualified based on AI-hallucinated events or allegations contradicted by the record. Counsel was ordered to show cause within ten days, without using AI, why sanctions or referral to the Florida Bar should not follow.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies fabricated quotes and misrepresented authority and records Petition denied; counsel ordered to show cause, without using AI, why sanctions including possible Florida Bar referral should not be imposed.. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects fabricated quotes and misrepresented authority with Petition denied; counsel ordered to show cause, without using AI, why sanctions including possible Florida Bar referral should not be imposed. in Fla. 4th DCA. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Misrepresented: Legal Norm | The filing asserted that a motion to disqualify automatically stayed all trial-court proceedings. The court characterized this as a recurring AI-hallucinated argument and held that the assertion was legally mistaken. Outcome: Petition denied; counsel ordered to show cause, without using AI, why sanctions including possible Florida Bar referral should not be imposed.. The court found that counsel’s filings appeared to contain AI-generated components, including convoluted and frivolous arguments, alleged events contrary to the official record, and legal gibberish. The court expressly noted that the cited cases were real and that the matter did not involve hallucinated law or false legal citations. It rejected the petition and disqualification motion, emphasizing that a judge cannot be disqualified based on AI-hallucinated events or allegations contradicted by the record. Counsel was ordered to show cause within ten days, without using AI, why sanctions or referral to the Florida Bar should not follow.
This matter connects fabricated quotes and misrepresented authority with Petition denied; counsel ordered to show cause, without using AI, why sanctions including possible Florida Bar referral should not be imposed. in Fla. 4th 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.
Petition denied; counsel ordered to show cause, without using AI, why sanctions including possible Florida Bar referral should not be imposed.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
7 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | The filing asserted that a motion to disqualify automatically stayed all trial-court proceedings. The court characterized this as a recurring AI-hallucinated argument and held that the assertion was legally mistaken.
- Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | The motion to disqualify alleged that the judge systematically muzzled counsel and refused to allow a proffer. The court reviewed the hearing transcript and found those allegations contrary to the record, making them insufficient for disqualification.
- Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | The filings alleged that the court continued proceedings while counsel’s audio malfunctioned and repeatedly misidentified counsel as “Mr. Soroka.” The official transcript did not support those claims; it showed that the court alerted counsel when she was muted and contained no such misidentifications.
- Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | The motion asserted that the court admonished counsel for failing to cross-examine witnesses, using the phrase “The bind that creates, participate and get shut down on the one hand . . . decline and get admonished on the other.” The court found the passage to be legal gibberish and noted that the record contained no citation or quotation supporting the alleged admonishment.
- Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | The petition and motion repeatedly claimed that counsel was prevented from presenting a defense, making arguments, preserving issues, or moving to disqualify during the contempt hearing. The court found these claims contradicted by the transcript, which showed that counsel had opportunities to act but did not do so.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | The filings asserted that the trial court could not hear from the guardian ad litem because no written report had been filed. The court rejected the argument as baseless, explaining that Florida law permits a guardian ad litem to address the court and make oral recommendations, particularly where the report could not be completed because contact with the child had been cut off.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | The motion relied on an unpublished decision in an unrelated case to accuse the trial judge of departing from the essential requirements of law. The court held that the decision had no precedential value and was irrelevant to the proceeding.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Lisandrillo v. Palozzi?
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | The filing asserted that a motion to disqualify automatically stayed all trial-court proceedings. The court characterized this as a recurring AI-hallucinated argument and held that the assertion was legally mistaken. Outcome: Petition denied; counsel ordered to show cause, without using AI, why sanctions including possible Florida Bar referral should not be imposed.. The court found that counsel’s filings appeared to contain AI-generated components, including convoluted and frivolous arguments, alleged events contrary to the official record, and legal gibberish. The court expressly noted that the cited cases were real and that the matter did not involve hallucinated law or false legal citations. It rejected the petition and disqualification motion, emphasizing that a judge cannot be disqualified based on AI-hallucinated events or allegations contradicted by the record. Counsel was ordered to show cause within ten days, without using AI, why sanctions or referral to the Florida Bar should not follow.
- Why does Lisandrillo v. Palozzi matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fabricated quotes and misrepresented authority with Petition denied; counsel ordered to show cause, without using AI, why sanctions including possible Florida Bar referral should not be imposed. in Fla. 4th DCA. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Lisandrillo v. Palozzi?
- 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 Lisandrillo v. Palozzi 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.