Kid International v. City National Bank of Florida

The record

• CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District
• JudgesShaw J., writing; Gerber C.J. and Lott J. concurring
• CaseNo. 4D2025-2599, an appeal from a final summary judgment for the defendants in the Circuit Court for Broward County, on the statute of limitations. Affirmed without discussion of the merits
• Date7 October 2026. Not final until disposition of any timely motion for rehearing
• SanctionedThe plaintiffs, Kid International, LLC, Lichi, LLC and Yaron Katz, and their counsel, Winsor Daniel Jr. of The Daniel Firm, Weston
• The errorsIn the initial brief: a hallucinated case cited seven times, with a fictional quotation; fictional quotations put into a federal decision about the same bank, to claim admissions it never made; a real Florida case cited with the wrong citation, court and year, for a proposition and a quotation it does not contain; a quotation attributed to a 1956 Florida Supreme Court opinion that does not appear in it; and several propositions not accurately drawn from another Florida Supreme Court decision
• ToolGenerative AI, not named. Counsel said his firm “incorporated generative artificial-intelligence (‘AI’) technology as one component of the legal research and drafting process”, and that he had accepted his client’s offer to supply research materials and authorities
• AmountThe defendants’ reasonable attorney’s fees for litigating the appeal, including any rehearing motion. The opinion states no figure; the circuit court sets it on remand
• Who paysThe plaintiffs and their counsel, jointly and severally
• AuthorityFlorida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410(b), on the defendants’ motion. The court extended its earlier decisions under its own power in rule 9.410(a) to a party’s motion for fees
• BelowThe plaintiffs began the case without a lawyer. Their complaint cited thirty-two cases: fifteen did not exist, and only one was accurately cited with the correct holding. An amended complaint filed through an attorney dropped them

What the court found

The court did its own review of the brief and confirmed the errors the defendants had raised. It then ordered the plaintiffs to show cause why the brief should not be struck. Counsel’s response accepted the problem in full:

“[c]ertain authorities did not exist as cited, while other citations or propositions attributed to authorities were inaccurate.”

He fully accepted responsibility, and gave the cause in one line: his “verification process failed to identify before filing that certain authorities did not exist, were inaccurately cited, or did not support the propositions attributed”. He sought leave to file an amended brief, though, as he admitted, the amended brief “did not resolve all the citation issues”. He told the court he had changed his procedures so that authorities are independently located and checked against authoritative sources before filing.

The court proceeded on the brief as filed and set aside everything false in it, quoting its own earlier ruling:

“Such phantom authority cannot assist any litigant and must be expressly disregarded by this court.”

On the sanction, the court relied on its recent line of cases holding that submitting fictitious or fabricated case law, whether from carelessness, misunderstanding or reliance on generative AI tools, “is sanctionable”. It borrowed a federal judge’s words that counsel must “carefully evaluate, elucidate, and advocate”, and “not hallucinate”, and noted that the brief was, on the plaintiffs’ own admission, “drafted with the assistance of AI and input from the plaintiffs”.

Why it matters

Three features travel. First, the client pays too. The client supplied research, and the order makes the client and the lawyer liable together for the full award, not the lawyer alone.

Second, the other side can ask. The court’s earlier decisions rested on its own power to sanction; this one extends them to a party’s motion for fees. An opponent who spends time hunting for cases that do not exist can now recover that time.

Third, candour did not avert it. Counsel admitted the errors, accepted responsibility, tried to correct the brief and changed his procedures. The fees were awarded anyway, because the brief had already been filed.

Sources

• Kid International, LLC v. City National Bank of Florida, No. 4D2025-2599 (Fla. 4th DCA, 7 October 2026), four pages, read in full for this page

Related

• The full sanctions record
• Capital Standard v. U.S. Bank, Florida’s Second District on fabricated citations
• Parnell v. Florida Department of Corrections, the Eleventh Circuit
• Aguilar v. The Crawford Group, where the enterprise version of the tool was no defence

Checked against the opinion, read in full. Information, not legal advice, and not advice on Florida law.