Lisandrillo v. Palozzi

Why this matter is tracked

Record details

Corrected 2026-10-30: see the corrections log.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Misrepresented: Case Law | The motion relied on an unpublished decision in an unrelated case to accuse the trial judge of departing from the essential requirements of law.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 on 16 Sep 2026 with an order to show cause; on 21 Oct 2026 the court found counsel's 82-page response missed the point and referred counsel to the Florida Bar (no monetary sanction).

Why does Lisandrillo v. Palozzi matter for legal AI risk?

This matter connects fabricated quotes and misrepresented authority with Petition denied on 16 Sep 2026 with an order to show cause; on 21 Oct 2026 the court found counsel's 82-page response missed the point and referred counsel to the Florida Bar (no monetary sanction) in CA Florida (4d). 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 link is a secondary public source and should be checked against the docket where available. 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 CourtListener / RECAP. It is classified as docket or legal-document mirror; 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.

The Fourth District issued a further order on October 21, 2026, referring counsel to the Florida Bar. Read the order itself (PDF, 2 pages) or the Lisandrillo v. Palozzi case file with its dated timeline. The order is not final until disposition of a timely-filed motion for rehearing.