SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
Case No. 6D2026-0121 Lower Tribunal No. 2020-DR-002544 _____________________________
MELISSA ELIZABETH HARRELL HESSERT,
Petitioner,
v.
GARY BELL HESSERT and MEGAN WIELAND-PULAYYA,
Respondents. _____________________________
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Orange County. Alicia Peyton Robinson, Judge.
March 20, 2026
PRATT, J.
The petition for writ of certiorari, docketed January 15, 2026, is denied
without further discussion.
We write to address the petition’s concerning citation to non-existent cases,
as well as the petition’s concerning citation to actual cases which do not stand for
the legal propositions asserted in the petition. From all appearances, the petition
bears the hallmarks of having been produced by Petitioner—a pro se filer—with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) 1 but without Petitioner having
put sufficient guardrails into place to ensure the accuracy of the cases cited in her
petition or the accuracy of the legal propositions for which the cases are cited in her
petition.
Here, the petition filed by Petitioner cites to thirteen cases. Only four of the
cited cases both exist and are cited for legal propositions that the cited cases actually
represent. Five of the cited cases do not exist. Four of the cited cases are cited for
legal propositions that the cited cases do not actually represent.
Courts across the United States, including Florida’s appellate courts, are
currently grappling with an influx of court filings produced by pro se litigants and
attorneys alike with the assistance of AI that cite non-existent cases or that cite actual
cases for inaccurate legal propositions. See, e.g., Russell v. Mells, 50 Fla. L. Weekly
D2609, 2025 WL 3533637 (Fla. 2d DCA Dec. 10, 2025) (case involving an
attorney’s improper use of AI); Clerk of Ct. & Comptroller for 13th Jud. Cir.,
Hillsborough Cnty. v. Rangel, No. 2D2024-1772, 2025 WL 2486314 (Fla. 2d DCA
1 “Generative AI[—i.e., generative artificial intelligence—]are deep-learning models that compile data to generate statistically probable outputs when prompted. . . . Generative AI can create original images, analyze documents, and draft briefs based on written prompts. Often, these programs rely on large language models. The datasets utilized by generative AI large language models can included billions of parameters making it virtually impossible to determine how a program came to a specific result. . . . [G]enerative AI can hallucinate or create inaccurate answers that sound convincing.” Fla. Bar Ethics Op. 24-1, at 1-2 (Jan. 19, 2024) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 2 Aug. 29, 2025) (case involving an attorney’s improper use of AI); Takefman v.
Pickleball Club, LLC, 418 So. 3d 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (case involving a pro se
litigant’s improper use of AI); Goya v. Hayashida, 418 So. 3d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA
2025) (case involving a pro se litigant’s improper use of AI); Gutierrez v. Gutierrez,
399 So. 3d 1185 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (case involving a pro se litigant’s improper use
of AI). Although AI is a relatively new technology, and although AI may have
appropriate uses in the legal field, there is simply no excuse for pro se litigants or
attorneys to file briefs, motions, and other filings in Florida’s appellate courts that
cite to cases without first performing the necessary and simple steps of (1) cite-
checking the cases to ensure they actually exist and (2) cite-checking the cases to
ensure they actually represent the legal propositions asserted. See, e.g., Russell, 2025
WL 3533637, at *6 (“To state the obvious, it is a fundamental duty of [pro se litigants
and] attorneys to read the legal authorities they cite in appellate briefs or any other
court filings to determine that the authorities stand for the propositions for which
they are cited.” (citation omitted)); Goya, 418 So. 3d at 655 (“An attempt to persuade
a court or oppose an adversary by relying on fake opinions is an abuse of the
adversary system.” (citation omitted)). This is true regardless of whether such filings
are prepared with or without the assistance of AI.
Florida’s appellate courts, like other courts, require pro se litigants and
attorneys to sign their filings and thereby represent the accuracy thereof. See, e.g.,
3 Fla. R. App. P. 9.045(d) (“All documents filed with the court must be signed as
required by Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515.”);
Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.515(d)(2) (“On filing, each signer represents
that: (A) the signer has read the document; (B) to the best of the signer’s knowledge,
information, and belief, there are good grounds to support the document; and (C) the
document is not interposed for delay.”). Members of the Florida Bar—who are
officers of the court—must also comply with their ethical duties when they sign and
make filings in Florida’s appellate courts. See, e.g., Fla. Bar v. Brown, 905 So. 2d
76, 82 (Fla. 2005) (“[T]he unique role of attorneys as officers of the court mandates
that attorneys be held to the highest of ethical standards.” (quoting DeBock v. State,
512 So. 2d 164, 168 (Fla. 1987))); Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So. 2d 561, 571
(Fla. 2005) (“[Appellate courts] depend on counsel to accurately state both the facts
and the applicable law. Therefore, regardless of trial counsel’s conduct or
representations, appellate counsel (who often is separate from trial counsel) has an
independent ethical obligation to present both the facts and the applicable law
accurately and forthrightly.”); Russell, 2025 WL 3533637, at *6 (“As judges, we
rely on attorneys to ethically represent their clients. We expect that representation to
be zealous, honest, and competent. Indeed, lawyers owe the courts and their clients
a duty to practice with competence and candor. . . . By signing an appellate brief, a
lawyer certifies that he or she has read the document and that to the best of the
4 lawyer’s knowledge, information, and belief there are ‘good grounds to support the
document.’” (first citing R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-1.1; then citing R. Regulating Fla.
Bar 4-3.3(a)(1); and then quoting Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.515(d))); R.
Regulating Fla. Bar 4-1.3 (“A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence . . . in
representing a client.”); see also Black’s Law Dictionary 573 (12th ed. 2024)
(providing several definitions of “diligence,” including “[t]he attention and care
required from a person in a given situation; care; heedfulness”); The American
Heritage Dictionary 507 (5th ed. 2011) (similar).
Florida’s appellate courts have the authority and the duty to maintain the
integrity of the proceedings before them, including where appropriate sanctioning
pro se litigants and attorneys who fail to follow the Florida Rules of Appellate
Procedure and court orders. See, e.g., Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a) (“After 10 days’
notice, on its own motion, the court may impose sanctions for any violation of these
rules, or for the filing of any proceeding, motion, brief, or other document that is
frivolous or in bad faith. Such sanctions may include reprimand, contempt, striking
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
Case No. 6D2026-0121 Lower Tribunal No. 2020-DR-002544 _____________________________
MELISSA ELIZABETH HARRELL HESSERT,
Petitioner,
v.
GARY BELL HESSERT and MEGAN WIELAND-PULAYYA,
Respondents. _____________________________
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Orange County. Alicia Peyton Robinson, Judge.
March 20, 2026
PRATT, J.
The petition for writ of certiorari, docketed January 15, 2026, is denied
without further discussion.
We write to address the petition’s concerning citation to non-existent cases,
as well as the petition’s concerning citation to actual cases which do not stand for
the legal propositions asserted in the petition. From all appearances, the petition
bears the hallmarks of having been produced by Petitioner—a pro se filer—with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) 1 but without Petitioner having
put sufficient guardrails into place to ensure the accuracy of the cases cited in her
petition or the accuracy of the legal propositions for which the cases are cited in her
petition.
Here, the petition filed by Petitioner cites to thirteen cases. Only four of the
cited cases both exist and are cited for legal propositions that the cited cases actually
represent. Five of the cited cases do not exist. Four of the cited cases are cited for
legal propositions that the cited cases do not actually represent.
Courts across the United States, including Florida’s appellate courts, are
currently grappling with an influx of court filings produced by pro se litigants and
attorneys alike with the assistance of AI that cite non-existent cases or that cite actual
cases for inaccurate legal propositions. See, e.g., Russell v. Mells, 50 Fla. L. Weekly
D2609, 2025 WL 3533637 (Fla. 2d DCA Dec. 10, 2025) (case involving an
attorney’s improper use of AI); Clerk of Ct. & Comptroller for 13th Jud. Cir.,
Hillsborough Cnty. v. Rangel, No. 2D2024-1772, 2025 WL 2486314 (Fla. 2d DCA
1 “Generative AI[—i.e., generative artificial intelligence—]are deep-learning models that compile data to generate statistically probable outputs when prompted. . . . Generative AI can create original images, analyze documents, and draft briefs based on written prompts. Often, these programs rely on large language models. The datasets utilized by generative AI large language models can included billions of parameters making it virtually impossible to determine how a program came to a specific result. . . . [G]enerative AI can hallucinate or create inaccurate answers that sound convincing.” Fla. Bar Ethics Op. 24-1, at 1-2 (Jan. 19, 2024) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 2 Aug. 29, 2025) (case involving an attorney’s improper use of AI); Takefman v.
Pickleball Club, LLC, 418 So. 3d 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (case involving a pro se
litigant’s improper use of AI); Goya v. Hayashida, 418 So. 3d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA
2025) (case involving a pro se litigant’s improper use of AI); Gutierrez v. Gutierrez,
399 So. 3d 1185 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (case involving a pro se litigant’s improper use
of AI). Although AI is a relatively new technology, and although AI may have
appropriate uses in the legal field, there is simply no excuse for pro se litigants or
attorneys to file briefs, motions, and other filings in Florida’s appellate courts that
cite to cases without first performing the necessary and simple steps of (1) cite-
checking the cases to ensure they actually exist and (2) cite-checking the cases to
ensure they actually represent the legal propositions asserted. See, e.g., Russell, 2025
WL 3533637, at *6 (“To state the obvious, it is a fundamental duty of [pro se litigants
and] attorneys to read the legal authorities they cite in appellate briefs or any other
court filings to determine that the authorities stand for the propositions for which
they are cited.” (citation omitted)); Goya, 418 So. 3d at 655 (“An attempt to persuade
a court or oppose an adversary by relying on fake opinions is an abuse of the
adversary system.” (citation omitted)). This is true regardless of whether such filings
are prepared with or without the assistance of AI.
Florida’s appellate courts, like other courts, require pro se litigants and
attorneys to sign their filings and thereby represent the accuracy thereof. See, e.g.,
3 Fla. R. App. P. 9.045(d) (“All documents filed with the court must be signed as
required by Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515.”);
Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.515(d)(2) (“On filing, each signer represents
that: (A) the signer has read the document; (B) to the best of the signer’s knowledge,
information, and belief, there are good grounds to support the document; and (C) the
document is not interposed for delay.”). Members of the Florida Bar—who are
officers of the court—must also comply with their ethical duties when they sign and
make filings in Florida’s appellate courts. See, e.g., Fla. Bar v. Brown, 905 So. 2d
76, 82 (Fla. 2005) (“[T]he unique role of attorneys as officers of the court mandates
that attorneys be held to the highest of ethical standards.” (quoting DeBock v. State,
512 So. 2d 164, 168 (Fla. 1987))); Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So. 2d 561, 571
(Fla. 2005) (“[Appellate courts] depend on counsel to accurately state both the facts
and the applicable law. Therefore, regardless of trial counsel’s conduct or
representations, appellate counsel (who often is separate from trial counsel) has an
independent ethical obligation to present both the facts and the applicable law
accurately and forthrightly.”); Russell, 2025 WL 3533637, at *6 (“As judges, we
rely on attorneys to ethically represent their clients. We expect that representation to
be zealous, honest, and competent. Indeed, lawyers owe the courts and their clients
a duty to practice with competence and candor. . . . By signing an appellate brief, a
lawyer certifies that he or she has read the document and that to the best of the
4 lawyer’s knowledge, information, and belief there are ‘good grounds to support the
document.’” (first citing R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-1.1; then citing R. Regulating Fla.
Bar 4-3.3(a)(1); and then quoting Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.515(d))); R.
Regulating Fla. Bar 4-1.3 (“A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence . . . in
representing a client.”); see also Black’s Law Dictionary 573 (12th ed. 2024)
(providing several definitions of “diligence,” including “[t]he attention and care
required from a person in a given situation; care; heedfulness”); The American
Heritage Dictionary 507 (5th ed. 2011) (similar).
Florida’s appellate courts have the authority and the duty to maintain the
integrity of the proceedings before them, including where appropriate sanctioning
pro se litigants and attorneys who fail to follow the Florida Rules of Appellate
Procedure and court orders. See, e.g., Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a) (“After 10 days’
notice, on its own motion, the court may impose sanctions for any violation of these
rules, or for the filing of any proceeding, motion, brief, or other document that is
frivolous or in bad faith. Such sanctions may include reprimand, contempt, striking
of briefs or pleadings, dismissal of proceedings, costs, attorneys’ fees, or other
sanctions.”); Ardis v. Ardis, 130 So. 3d 791, 796 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (“We conclude
that sanctions are appropriate in accordance with Florida Rule of Appellate
Procedure 9.410 and this court’s authority to control its docket.” (citations omitted)).
Florida’s appellate courts also have the authority and the duty to safeguard the
5 integrity of the legal profession, including where appropriate referring an attorney
to the Florida Bar for potential disciplinary action. See, e.g., Fla. Code Jud. Conduct,
Canon 3D.(2) (“A judge who receives information or has actual knowledge that
substantial likelihood exists that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules
Regulating The Florida Bar shall take appropriate action.”); Russell, 2025 WL
3533637, at *6 (“When a lawyer cites imaginary legal authorities to our court as if
they were law, we are compelled to refer that lawyer to the Bar because of the
professional rules of conduct.”); see generally R. Regulating Fla. Bar 3-7.18 (rule
governing the disposition of inquiries or complaints referred to the Bar by members
of the judiciary).
All filers in cases before the Sixth District Court of Appeal should take notice:
our Court will remain vigilant to ensure that filings signed by pro se litigants and
attorneys alike—including filings prepared with or without the assistance of AI—
both: (1) do not cite to non-existent cases and (2) do not cite to cases for inaccurate
legal propositions. If and when any such erroneous filings are made in a given case
before our Court, filers on the opposite side of the case should point out such errors
to our Court either in their responsive filings or via motion. To avoid the potentiality
of the issuance of orders to show cause, pro se litigants and attorneys should
remember their obligation to cite-check all cases cited in their filings in Florida’s
appellate courts prior to making their filings—regardless of whether their filings are
6 prepared with or without the assistance of AI. Pro se litigants and attorneys should
also remember that they cannot satisfy their aforementioned obligation by relying
upon AI to cite-check the cases cited in their filings. See, e.g., Fla. R. App. P.
9.045(d); Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.515(d)(2); see generally Russell, 2025
WL 3533637, at *4 n.3.
In the petition at issue in this case, Petitioner has provided citations to a
number of cases, some of which exist and some of which do not. Petitioner is
directed to provide copies of each and every case cited in the petition that actually
exists with highlighted quotations or language that support the assertions made in
the petition. These cases shall be filed in a supplemental appendix, indexed for each
case, with this Court within ten days of the issuance of this opinion.
In light of the foregoing, Petitioner is directed to show cause within ten days
of the issuance of this opinion why she should not be sanctioned for filing a petition
that contains non-existent cases and that cites to cases for inaccurate legal
propositions. Potential sanctions include the imposition of a requirement that a
member of the Florida Bar in good standing review and sign any future filings in
this Court on behalf of Petitioner in any matter in which she seeks review of the
underlying action (Lower Tribunal No. 2020-DR-002544).
PETITION DENIED. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ISSUED.
WHITE and BROWNLEE, JJ., concur.
7 Melissa Elizabeth Harrell Hessert, Clermont, pro se.
Michelle Stile, of Stile Law, PLLC, Orlando, for Respondent, Gary Bell Hessert.
Megan Wieland-Pulayya, Orlando, pro se.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED