Lisandrillo v Palozzi
AI-generated text. This page was generated using artificial intelligence.
Lisandrillo v. Palozzi concerns an appellate petition arising from a marriage-dissolution proceeding and a subsequent referral of petitioner’s counsel, Jaclyn R. Soroka, to the Florida Bar. Its AI-law significance concerns responsibility for court submissions and the court’s stated suspicion of AI-assisted argument, rather than a claim against an AI provider.[1][2]
September 16, 2026 petition denial and show-cause order
The Fourth District denied prohibition relief challenging the refusal to disqualify the trial judge, and denied the petition’s additional requests for certiorari relief. It criticized arguments contradicted by the hearing record, procedural misuse and lengthy, unfocused submissions. The opinion said the court suspected AI-generated components, while explaining that counsel remained responsible for the filings regardless of how they were produced. It required a response within ten days, prepared without AI, addressing possible sanctions including a Bar referral.[1]
October 21, 2026 Bar referral
After reviewing counsel’s 82-page response, the court referred the matter to the Florida Bar. The opinion said the response evaded the AI-use question. It recorded counsel’s position that she exercised independent judgment and verified her submissions, and her explanation that a false quotation attributed to a Fourth District case resulted from human error under time pressure. The court rejected the adequacy of the response and reiterated counsel’s responsibility for the content she signed.[2]
The referral does not itself establish a later disciplinary sanction or prove that AI generated the false quotation. The October 21 opinion states that it is not final until disposition of a timely rehearing motion. A later rehearing disposition or Florida Bar disciplinary outcome has not been verified here.[2]