AI Risk Wire

Cases › other › LR-2026-0736

Lawyer under fire over AI-generated court filing

Preliminary Why: 1 report: JDJournal Blog - · subject to change · 1 independent report

Status: no action reported

Severity minor
Reported 17 Sep 2026

No source states: loss or records, developer and model, agent tool, could do, deployer, industry.

Severity minor: Judged minor: the test is contained to one deployer or evaluation with no third party touched. The sources describe one family-law appeal filing, and no sanctions have been imposed yet.

A Florida attorney, Jaclyn R. Soroka, filed documents with the Fourth District Court of Appeal in a family-law dispute. The court denied her petition for extraordinary relief but also reviewed the quality of the filings and found some arguments long and unfocused. The court said the cited cases were real, so its concern was the reasoning built on them rather than fake authorities. The judges said they suspected the filings contained AI-generated material. The court ordered Soroka to explain why sanctions should not be imposed and gave her 10 days to respond. Soroka has not been sanctioned at this stage.

What happened

1 · What went wrongThe court found the filings contained long and unfocused arguments.
2 · What it reached or didThe court denied the petition for extraordinary relief.
3 · How it was caughtThe judges raised concerns about the filings in their opinion.

What was done

No source states an action or fix.

Risks

Not yet sorted into a risk

Controls

Not yet read for controls. Controls that mitigate the primary risk:

Evidence

No source states: what the AI was doing, when it happened, when it was found, how many records were exposed, the direct loss, a count of the other parties affected, any court case, the cause, what set it off, what was done.

Show the full account: 3 items from the primary sources

What happened, in order

  1. May 2026 The Florida Supreme Court amended Rule 2.515 on AI-related filings.
  2. 2026-06-15 The amended Rule 2.515 took effect.
  3. September 16 The judges raised concerns about the filings in their opinion.
Show every field, with its source and grade

What happened

Earliest source we hold
2026-09-17
D inferred by us from the described behaviour, reason shown
What went wrong
other
D inferred by us from the described behaviour, reason shown

Impact

Severity
minor
D inferred by us from the described behaviour, reason shown
Why this severity
Judged minor: the test is contained to one deployer or evaluation with no third party touched. The sources describe one family-law appeal filing, and no sanctions have been imposed yet.
D inferred by us from the described behaviour, reason shown

Notes on gaps

The filing date, the year of the September 16 opinion (inferred by the article date but not stated in the quote), and the disclosure date are not stated as complete dates, so date fields are left out. No risk in the closed list fits the stated facts, so risks is empty.

LR-2026-0736 · version 1 · published 2026-11-01 after automatic checks; not yet checked field by field by a person · JSON