AI-generated filing misappropriates Florida attorney’s identity
Matthew Weidner: “A few months ago, I got contacted by a lawyer…my name appeared in pleadings filed in court…on a case I had NOTHING to do with.”
When he learned that his name and Florida Bar number appeared, without his knowledge or permission, in an AI-generated court filing, St. Petersburg attorney Matthew Weidner filed an unlicensed practice of law complaint with The Florida Bar.
Then he contacted the News to sound the alarm.
“Help! I’ve been body snatched!” Weidner quipped. “A few months ago, I got contacted by a lawyer…my name appeared in pleadings filed in court…on a case I had NOTHING to do with.”
A 1999 FSU College of Law graduate, Weidner represents clients in foreclosure actions, consumer and commercial finance transactions, and other civil litigation matters.
But Weidner did not represent a defendant fighting eviction in a Sixth Judicial Circuit case in which the plaintiff was a bank acting as trustee for a commercial loan trust.
In a motion, the plaintiffs asked the judge to impose sanctions against the defendant “for fraud on the court.”
“The Court should strike the Defendant’s Answer and enter default judgment in favor of plaintiff because Defendant engaged in deliberate and contumacious disregard of the Court’s authority by misappropriating the Florida Bar Number of a practicing Florida attorney and falsely claiming to be represented by Florida counsel.”
In their motion, the plaintiffs note that a name listed as the defendant’s attorney is not a Florida Bar member. A Florida Bar number attributed to the “attorney” belongs to Weidner, the plaintiffs note. The plaintiffs also noted that the defendant’s filings listed the email address of a Newport Beach, Calif., company “which claims to provide ‘litigation services’ for mortgage and real property litigation, bankruptcy, and eviction cases.”
“However, the website does not reflect that any licensed attorneys” work for the company, the plaintiffs wrote.
When Weidner read the defendant’s pleadings, he recognized them immediately as his work in a previous, unrelated case.
“Somewhere in the back of my brain, I read my brilliant writing and I say, ‘Wow, whoever drafted that motion was really on their toes,’” Weidner quipped.
An avid blogger, Weidner often posts his pleadings online in hopes of aiding pro se litigants.
“It has been one of the most rewarding parts of my career,” Weidner says. “I got a call a week ago from a guy saying thank you for all the stuff you did years ago, it really saved my house.”
This time, however, the “litigation services” company in the eviction case used generative AI to scoop up some of Weidner’s old work in a previous case.
In a response to the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, the defendant attributes the error to “a simple cut-and-paste mistake.”
“At no time did the Defendant (or any agent, third party, or attorney on Defendant’s behalf), intend to misappropriate or intentionally utilize the name of another attorney or their Bar Number for purposes of this judicial foreclosure action.”
After the litigation service downloaded a PDF from a third-party website, and converted it into a Microsoft Word document, “Mr. Weidner’s name and signature line were not properly edited,” the defendant claimed.
Weidner agrees that the incident is a cautionary tale about the urgent need to review all AI-generated legal documents before filing them with a court.
He is also concerned that AI is making it easier for bad actors to prey on consumers through the unlicensed practice of law.
“This is outrageous, and we’re going to see more and more of it,” he said.
