Russell v. Mells
“[I]t is our duty to refer this matter to the Florida Bar to proceed as it deems appropriate.”
The court, in Russell v. Mells
The case
Russell v. Mells, No. 2D2024-1560 (Fla. 2d DCA, Dec. 10, 2025). Attorney: Sara Evelyn McLane of Largo, Florida, counsel for appellee Linda Burnell Mells. Reported at: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/florida-lawyer-blasted-for-not-signing-own-ai-gaffe-apology
What happened
McLane's answer brief contained three case citations: one, Cade v. Roberts, 403 So. 2d 516, did not exist at all ("No such case exists," ORDER, p. 7), and the two real cases were misquoted. Ordered to show cause in writing, she attributed the citations to "computer generated searches" without saying whether generative AI was used, characterized the misquotations as "not substantive in nature," and said the fabricated case was "not made for the purpose of misleading the Court" (ORDER, pp. 8–9), a framing the court did not accept. The signature line of her response appears to have been executed by someone on her behalf rather than by McLane herself (ORDER, p. 9).
The rule and the sanction
No monetary sanction was imposed. The court's only sanction was referral to the Florida Bar: "it is our duty to refer this matter to the Florida Bar to proceed as it deems appropriate" (ORDER, p. 12). The court called the brief "simply unacceptable" and said it was "deeply troubled by this brief and by this attorney's response" (ORDER, p. 10). Of the delegated signature it said the practice was not "a legal or ethical impropriety" but "certainly didn't make a good impression" (ORDER, p. 9 n.5).
How it could have been avoided
Answer a show-cause order personally, precisely, and in your own hand: name what the error actually was, sign the response yourself, and never characterize a fabricated case as "not substantive." The referral rested on the fabricated authority itself; the response's evasive framing only deepened the panel's stated trouble.