Court Considering Whether Litigant Should Be Barred from Further Self-Represented Filings, Because of Fabricated Citations

From Gouldy v. Chiasson, decided Wednesday by the Florida Court of Appeal (Judge Robert Gross, joined by Judges Melanie May and Spencer Levine):

This appeal arises from a frivolous underlying lawsuit Gouldy brought against Chiasson, an attorney, in connection with Chiasson’s actions in representing appellees Amanda Munyan and Michael Peak in a related probate matter involving Gouldy.

We affirm the appeal in all respects and issue a separate order to show cause as to why Gouldy should not be barred from further pro se filings in this court. Gouldy’s excessively long pro se brief contains frivolous arguments, misrepresentations of the record, a phantom case, and fake quotes from actual cases….

This case demonstrates a growing problem in Florida’s appellate courts. The recent change in jurisdiction has given intermediate appellate courts jurisdiction to hear appeals from county court cases. The result has been that the amount of pro se appeals has significantly increased. Initially, the appellate courts were able to expeditiously handle the county court appeals.

Recently, however, it appears that many pro se litigants, in both county and circuit courts, are using artificial intelligence platforms to generate appellate briefs and motions. While the prose in these filings is generally readable, many AI-generated submissions contain phantom authority, misstatements of the record, and fabricated quotations.

Pro se litigants are not governed by the ethical rules with which licensed attorneys must comply. Because a principled appellate court must examine the issues raised by the parties, digging into AI-generated filings consumes valuable time that could be better spent on other cases.

We have observed: “The submission of fictitious or fabricated case law—whether the product of carelessness, misunderstanding, or reliance on generative artificial-intelligence tools—is sanctionable.”

Gouldy’s arguments in this appeal are either unpreserved, inadequately briefed, or wholly meritless. She raised fifteen issues, some with sub-issues.

To the extent any of her issues may contain a shred of arguable merit (e.g., the unpreserved apportionment argument), they are swamped by the sea of frivolous arguments that dominate her initial brief. Her initial brief cites a nonexistent case, misrepresents the record, fabricates multiple quotations from actual legal decisions, and otherwise relies upon cases that do not support the propositions for which they are cited. Gouldy has previously been warned twice against frivolous filings.

In addition to affirming this appeal in its entirety, by a separate order we are issuing an order to show cause as to why Gouldy should not be barred from further pro se filings in this court. See Friend v. Serpa (Fla. App. 2025) (explaining that this court has the authority to sanction a litigant for reliance on “phantom authority” in a brief); Clerk of Ct. & Comptroller for 13th Jud. Cir., Hillsborough Cnty. v. Rangel (Fla. App. 2025) (concluding that sanctions were appropriate where a brief included “multiple misstatements and misquotes” of case law). A brief that blatantly and repeatedly includes fabricated quotations from Florida case law meets the standard of a frivolous or bad faith filing, which authorizes sanctions under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(a).