Thomas Raynard James v. Detective Kevin Conley

Why this one is different

Every other matter on this record turns on a fabricated authority: a case that does not exist, a quotation that was never written. This one turns on a fabricated fact.

A Fifth Amended Complaint filed on 30 November 2025 alleged the existence and the content of an International Association of Chiefs of Police “Training Key”, a police training document. It could not be produced. It could not be verified. Counsel conceded it was AI-generated.

The court’s own equation is the sentence to carry:

“This kind of careless behavior is no different than including AI-hallucinated case law in court submissions, which the judiciary does not take lightly.”

What the recommendation says

The Report and Recommendation was authored by Magistrate Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein on referral from District Judge K. Michael Moore. It has two parts, and reading only the first gives the wrong impression of the second.

Part one, section IV.A, is headed “Defendant Failed to Satisfy the Rule 11(c)(2) Safe-Harbor Requirement”. Rule 11(c)(2) requires a movant to serve the sanctions motion and allow twenty one days to correct the alleged violation before filing it, and the requirement “must be strictly satisfied”. Defence counsel attempted service by email. Plaintiff’s counsel did not receive it, and five bounce-back messages were generated. On the court’s finding, the plaintiff moved to amend and withdraw the fictitious material within thirteen days of being served with the filed copy, which was the first effective service, and so “well within the 21-day safe harbor”. The motion is recommended denied on that basis.

The plaintiff’s own cross-request for fees and to strike is recommended denied too, and the court says why: in denying the motion for procedural reasons, it “will not reward Plaintiff for the very conduct necessitating the Motion in the first place”.

Part two, section IV.B, is separate and made on the court’s own motion. Four plaintiff’s counsel who signed the Fifth Amended Complaint are recommended for referral to the Ad Hoc Committee on Attorney Admissions, Peer Review, and Attorney Grievance of the Southern District of Florida, for a report and recommendation on what discipline, if any, should follow. The procedural failure that sank the motion does not touch this.

The findings are that counsel “chose to include unverified, hallucinated AI-generated content as a basis for allegations”, and “persisted in that position for months despite knowing they could not verify the information and despite Defendant putting them on notice repeatedly”.

The duty the court applies

The competence rule is the hook. The comment to Rule 4-1.1 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar requires competence to include “an understanding of the benefits and risks associated with the use of technology, including generative artificial intelligence”.

The recommendation is built on a line of authority that now includes published Eleventh Circuit law. It relies on Parnell v. Florida Department of Corrections, 181 F.4th 1209, 1212 (11th Cir. 2026), and a second Eleventh Circuit decision from the same date, alongside Versant Funding LLC v. Teras Breakbulk, 2025 WL 1440351 (S.D. Fla. 20 May 2025), Wadsworth v. Walmart, 348 F.R.D. 489 (D. Wyo. 2025), and Mata v. Avianca, 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

The case underneath

The plaintiff was convicted of the 1990 murder of Francis McKinnon. His conviction was vacated on 27 April 2022, nearly thirty two years later, after an eyewitness recanted. The civil action arises from that history. It is worth stating, because the seriousness of the underlying matter is part of why the pleading was read as closely as it was.

What this case contributes

• The surfaceThe duty to verify is applied to a factual allegation, not to a citation. That is a wider surface than any standing order currently describes.
• The testAn invented document offered as evidence is treated, for Rule 11 purposes, the same way an invented case is treated.
• The delayThe finding is not that an error was made. It is that the position was held for months after notice.
• The gateThe sanctions motion failed on service, not on the merits of the conduct. A procedural defect can defeat the motion and leave the conduct fully in view.
• The statusA recommendation, in two separate parts. Read it as the state of the argument, not as an outcome.

Sources

• Report and Recommendation, Document 261, No. 1:23-cv-24467 (S.D. Fla., entered 27 August 2026), twenty one pages, read in full.
• Located through Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases database, which is a compilation and not a primary source.
• We do not name the four counsel. The recommendation names them; no discipline has been imposed, and the referral has not taken effect.

Related

• The full sanctions record
• Parnell v. Florida Department of Corrections, the published Eleventh Circuit authority this recommendation relies on
• Shelbert v. Baxter, where a warning also reached factual assertions
• Capital Standard v. U.S. Bank, the Florida bar referral that did take effect

Checked 30 August 2026 against the Report and Recommendation, read in full. Information, not legal advice.