ARTICLE · 1121330
律师使用AI工具提交的过于冗长的文书材料也可能会面临惩戒
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA · FOURTH DISTRICT
佛罗里达州上诉法院 · 第四地区
制裁、「说明理由令」与 AI 文书的边界
LORIE JEAN LISANDRILLO v. RENEE PALOZZI · No. 4D2026-2262
中英对照 · 全文精读 下篇（共三篇）2026年9月16日 · 格罗斯法官（Gross, J.）
本篇承接上篇 本篇为完结篇，精读第十一至十四节：调卷令请求为何不可受理、法院为何不应容忍滥用 AI 辅助的文书，以及本判决最具标志性的部分——责令律师"不得使用 AI"说明理由的命令。文末附判决附录与脚注。
十一、调卷令请求
The Requests for Certiorari
那25页主张“应就七项裁决签发调卷令”的论述，进一步印证了议题堆砌的问题。该申请试图既复审口头裁决，也复审书面命令。
The 25 pages of argument that “certiorari should issue as to seven rulings” further demonstrates the issue-churning problem. The petition purports to seek review of oral rulings as well as the written orders.
这些裁决均不可上诉，也不属于调卷令复审的范围——调卷令复审属裁量性质，本案中并不具备签发条件。参见 Williams v. Oken, 62 So. 3d 1129, 1132 (Fla. 2011)；Bared & Co. v. McGuire, 670 So. 2d 153, 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)。口头裁决不属于调卷令复审范围。Holt for Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough Cnty. v. Keetley, 250 So. 3d 206, 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)。
None of these rulings are appealable or subject to certiorari review, which is discretionary and not merited here. See Williams v. Oken, 62 So. 3d 1129, 1132 (Fla. 2011); Bared & Co. v. McGuire, 670 So. 2d 153, 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). An oral ruling is not subject to certiorari review. Holt for Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough Cnty. v. Keetley, 250 So. 3d 206, 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018).
初审法院尚未确定补足探视时间，也未确定作为制裁判付的费用／讼费金额。临时监护裁决或终局性的费用／讼费判决将可上诉。这排除了调卷令复审。
The trial court has not determined the makeup timesharing or the amount of fees/costs to be imposed as a sanction. A temporary custody ruling or final fee/cost judgment will be appealable. This precludes certiorari review.
申请中请求调卷令的部分，炮制出与上文所述同类的、散弹式且晦涩难解的论点。
The certiorari portion of the petition churns out the same type of scattershot, convoluted arguments discussed above.
十二、法院不应容忍滥用 AI 辅助的文书
Courts Should Not Tolerate Abusive AI-Assisted Filing
自诉当事人和律师都可以轻易地滥用 AI，批量炮制出冗长且令人困惑的文件，给对方造成拖延、烦扰与费用。繁忙的法院可能被难以梳理的文书洪流所淹没。滥用 AI 提交文书会堵塞案件排期，损害司法运行。例如，Avery, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D1068（该案中，自诉当事人请求就90多项待决动议作出裁决）。
Pro se litigants and lawyers can easily abuse AI to crank out extensive and confounding documents that cause delay, annoyance, and expense to the other side. Busy courts can drown in a flood of filings that are difficult to navigate. Abusive AI filing clogs dockets and undermines the administration of justice. E.g., Avery, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D1068 (where the pro se litigant sought a ruling on more than 90 pending motions).
法院对律师有更高的期待。参见 Capital Standard, LLC v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n as tr. for Bear Stearns Asset Backed Sec. I Tr. 2005-AC9, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2005-AC9, No. 2D2024-1392, 2026 WL 2450571, at *1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2026年8月21日)（“一名执业律师若声称不知道依赖生成式 AI 而不复核结果的风险，令人难以置信。”）。
Courts expect more from an attorney. See Capital Standard, LLC v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n as tr. for Bear Stearns Asset Backed Sec. I Tr. 2005-AC9, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2005-AC9, No. 2D2024-1392, 2026 WL 2450571, at *1 (Fla. 2d DCA Aug. 21, 2026) (“[I]t defies belief for a practicing attorney to plead ignorance of the risks of relying on generative AI without double-checking the results.”).
律师以签名提交文件，即表示其已阅读该文件、“该文件有充分依据支持”，且“该文件并非为拖延而提出”。《佛罗里达州一般实践与司法行政规则》第2.515(d)(2)条。律师与自诉当事人一样，须对文书内容负责，不应提交无谓的、散弹式的论点。本案中使用的某些文句，连 AI 超级计算机都难以从中找出意义。律师的论点必须能为人类读者——法院、对方律师和当事人——所理解。
By filing a document with her signature, counsel represents that she has read the document, that “there are good grounds to support the document,” and that “the document is not interposed for delay.” Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.515(d)(2). No less than a pro se litigant, an attorney is responsible for the content of filings and should not be filing frivolous, scattershot arguments. An AI supercomputer would struggle to find meaning in some of the prose used in this case. Counsel's arguments need to be comprehensible to human readers—the courts, opposing counsel, and the litigants.
在本案中，该律师的文书与滥用动议的做法，与本院通常从缠讼型自诉当事人身上所见的情形如出一辙。这些文书似乎意在制造拖延。
Here, counsel's filings and abusive motion practice resemble what we typically see from vexatious pro se litigants. The filings appear designed to cause delay.
该律师在本案中的行为涉及多项职业行为规则：《佛罗里达州律师执业规则》第4-1.1条（“胜任能力”）；第4-2.1条（“顾问”）；第4-3.1条（“有正当理由的主张与论点”）；第4-3.2条（“加快诉讼”）；以及第4-3.3条（“对法庭的坦诚”）。
Counsel's conduct in this case implicates many rules of professional conduct. R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-1.1 (“Competence”); R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-2.1 (“Adviser”); R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-3.1 (“Meritorious Claims and Contentions”); R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-3.2 (“Expediting Litigation”); and R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-3.3 (“Candor toward the Tribunal”).
该律师的行为还引发了与计费有关的伦理问题。《佛罗里达州律师执业规则》第4-1.5条（“法律服务的费用与讼费”）。判断合理费用的第一项因素是“所需的时间与劳动，所涉问题的新颖性、复杂性与难度，以及适当提供该法律服务所需的技能”。《佛罗里达州律师执业规则》第4-1.5(b)(1)(A)条。
Counsel's conduct also raises ethical questions concerning billing. R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-1.5 (“Fees and Costs for Legal Services”). The first factor in determining a reasonable fee is “the time and labor required, the novelty, complexity, difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly.” R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-1.5(b)(1)(A).
生成“AI 垃圾”几乎不需要任何技能，也花不了多少时间。当律师提交这样的垃圾文书时，该律师即违反了“运用独立专业判断”的义务。《佛罗里达州律师执业规则》第4-2.1条。
It takes almost no skill and little time to generate AI slop. When a lawyer files such slop, the lawyer violates the duty to “exercise independent professional judgment.” R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-2.1.
十三、结论
Conclusion
该禁止令申请未显示出任何可获裁量性令状救济的依据。回避动议只是试图“阻挠”法院的裁决，其被驳回并无不当。Fischer, 497 So. 2d at 243（“本院认定该回避动议法律依据不足、无谓且不适时。”）。调卷令救济的请求同样予以驳回。
The prohibition petition shows no basis for discretionary writ relief. The motion to disqualify merely sought to “frustrate” the court's rulings and was properly denied. Fischer, 497 So. 2d at 243 (“We find the motion for disqualification legally insufficient, frivolous, and untimely.”). The request for certiorari relief is likewise denied.
十四、说明理由令
Order to Show Cause
在本意见作出后十（10）日内，申请人律师杰奎琳·R·索罗卡应提交答辩并说明理由——且不得使用 AI——阐明为何不应因向本院提交无谓文书而对其施加制裁，例如移送佛罗里达州律师协会以考虑启动纪律程序。参见《佛罗里达州上诉程序规则》第9.410(a)条（“经10日通知后，法院可依职权对违反本规则的行为，或对提交任何无谓或恶意进行的程序、动议、书状或其他文件的行为，施加制裁。”）。
Within ten (10) days of this opinion, petitioner's counsel, Jaclyn R. Soroka, shall file a response and show cause—without the use of AI—why sanctions, such as referral to the Florida Bar for consideration of disciplinary proceedings, should not be imposed for submitting frivolous filings to this Court. See 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.”).
申请驳回。有关制裁的说明理由令已发出。
Petition denied. Order to show cause concerning sanctions issued.
附录
Appendix
以下为《紧急综合申请》的“请求条款”（wherefore clause），引自申请第13至15页之间：
The following is the “wherefore” clause of the “Urgent Omnibus Application,” as quoted between pages 13 and 15 of the petition:
（a）基于申请人未提交本法院司法助理明确要求的协商证明（Certificate of Conferral）——该证明为布劳沃德县第10A号地方规则、《佛罗里达州民事诉讼规则》第1.202条及第40庭程序第V.(A)段所要求——驳回、中止或延期2026年7月14日下午3:30的藐视听证，并指令在协商证明提交前不得重新安排任何藐视听证；（b）处理被申请人待决的《紧急撤销申请及保护令动议》，并就藐视动议（文件编号250792821）中经记录的违反第2.425条规则之情形，行使本法院依《佛罗里达州一般实践与司法行政规则》第2.425(c)条的独立职权；（c）在2026年7月14日下午1:30的诉讼监护人案件管理会议上，在诉讼监护人未按《佛罗里达州法规》第61.403条及《指定令》第25段提交并送达书面报告的情况下，不得基于其未经宣誓的口头陈述采取任何行动，以符合被申请人在救济作出前审阅、反驳并交叉询问任何报告的正当程序权利，此系 Bahl v. Bahl, 220 So.3d 1214 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) 所要求；（d）处理诉讼监护人因2026年6月12日“更新建议”电子邮件而经记录的、违反《佛罗里达州法规》第61.404条及《指定令》第21段之情形，并告知各方：在正式法庭报告程序之外，任何进一步非正式披露诉讼监护人调查信息的行为，都将构成第二次违规；（e）在无法院命令且未证明符合《佛罗里达州法规》第61.403条要求及《指定令》第18段所确立的同意与异议程序的情况下，不予授权诉讼监护人与 S.P. 之间进行任何办公室内会面；（f）裁定《指定令》第19段在其意图凌驾于被申请人依《联邦法规汇编》第45编第164.508(b)(5)条合法撤销 HIPAA 授权之上、或在其意图凌驾于 Attorney ad Litem for D.K. v. Parents of D.K., 780 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) 及 S.C. v. Guardian Ad Litem, 845 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) 所承认的 S.P. 心理治疗师—患者特权之上时，不具有可执行性；且诉讼监护人的记录查阅应仅受《指定令》第18段及《佛罗里达州法规》第61.403(2)条规管；（g）就本动议第四部分A节所述撤销《指定诉讼监护人令》的理由安排听证，并在该听证之前指令本案中不得再进行任何进一步的诉讼监护人调查活动；（h）撤销或修改2026年3月30日《合意远离令》中的亲子关系修复治疗条款（如本动议第四部分B节所述），并在完成哈莉·罗巴克博士（Halle Roebuck, Ph.D., LMFT）于2026年6月17日建议的综合心理与精神科评估之前，中止与凯莉·佩恩特博士（Dr. Kelly Painter）进行的所有亲子关系修复治疗；（i）作出本动议第四部分C节所述的封存令，指令将以第19段为名或以超出信息授权书面范围的方式取得的所有诉讼监护人调查材料密封提交本法院，并在就上述材料获取的合法性举行听证前暂缓处理；（j）就本动议第一部分F节所述解除诉讼监护人职务的理由安排听证，或作为替代，基于本文所确立的诉讼监护人违反法规与指定令的累积记录解除其职务；（k）若本法院不解除诉讼监护人的职务，则依《佛罗里达州法规》第61.401条为 S.P. 另行指定一名独立的诉讼代理人（attorney ad litem），以保护 S.P. 的心理治疗师—患者特权，并推进 S.P. 所表达的立场，且独立于诉讼监护人；（l）认定被申请人就向塔米·伯曼（Tammy Berman）转介 DBT 治疗一事的行为，既不构成故意不遵守，也不构成民事藐视，因为 OFW 记录显示：被申请人于2026年6月25日发现了被转介服务提供者的临床局限性，并于当日书面通知申请人，且善意地、在与 S.P. 治疗临床团队协商下积极寻求适合其年龄的替代方案；以及（m）准予本法院认为公正适当的其他进一步救济。”
(a) Dismiss, stay, or continue the July 14, 2026, 3:30 p.m. contempt hearing based on Petitioner's failure to file the Certificate of Conferral explicitly required by this Court's Judicial Assistant, Broward County Local Rule 10A, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.202, and Division 40 Procedures Paragraph V.(A), and direct that no contempt hearing be rescheduled until a Certificate of Conferral is filed; (b) Address Respondent's pending Urgent Motion to Strike and for Protective Order and exercise this Court's independent authority under Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.425(c) with respect to the documented violation of Rule 2.425 in the Motion for Contempt (Filing No. 250792821); (c) At the July 14, 2026, 1:30 p.m. GAL Case Management Conference, take no action based on unsworn verbal representations by the Guardian ad Litem in the absence of a written report filed and served in compliance with Florida Statute section 61.403 and Paragraph 25 of the Order of Appointment, consistent with Respondent's due process rights to review, rebut, and cross-examine any report before relief is ordered, as required by Bahl v. Bahl, 220 So.3d 1214 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); (d) Address the Guardian ad Litem's documented violation of Florida Statute section 61.404 and Paragraph 21 of the Order of Appointment arising from the June 12, 2026 ‘Updated Recommendations’ email, and place all parties on notice that any further informal disclosure of GAL investigation information outside the formal court-report process would constitute a second violation; (e) Decline to authorize any in-office meeting between the Guardian ad Litem and S.P. absent a court order and demonstrated compliance with the requirements of Florida Statute section 61.403 and the Paragraph 18 consent and objection process established in the Order of Appointment; (f) Order that Paragraph 19 of the Order of Appointment is unenforceable to the extent it purports to override Respondent's lawful revocation of HIPAA authorization pursuant to 45 C.F.R. section 164.508(b)(5) or to override S.P.'s psychotherapist-patient privilege as recognized in Attorney ad Litem for D.K. v. Parents of D.K., 780 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), and S.C. v. Guardian Ad Litem, 845 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), and that records access by the Guardian ad Litem shall be governed exclusively by Paragraph 18 of the Order of Appointment and Florida Statute section 61.403(2); (g) Schedule a hearing on the grounds for vacatur of the Order Appointing Guardian Ad Litem as set forth in Part IV, Section A of this Motion, and pending that hearing, direct that no further GAL investigation activity occur in this matter; (h) Vacate or modify the reunification therapy provision of the March 30, 2026 Agreed Stay Away Order as set forth in Part IV, Section B of this Motion, and stay all reunification therapy sessions with Dr. Kelly Painter pending completion of the comprehensive psychological and psychiatric evaluation recommended by Dr. Halle Roebuck, Ph.D., LMFT on June 17, 2026; (i) Enter a sealing order as set forth in Part IV, Section C of this Motion, directing that all GAL investigation materials obtained under color of Paragraph 19 or outside the written scope of the authorized releases of information be submitted to this Court under seal and held in abeyance pending a hearing on the lawfulness of their procurement; (j) Schedule a hearing on the grounds for discharge of the Guardian ad Litem set forth in Part I, Section F of this Motion, or in the alternative discharge the Guardian ad Litem based on the cumulative record of statutory and appointment order violations established herein; (k) In the event this Court does not discharge the Guardian ad Litem, appoint a separate attorney ad litem for S.P. pursuant to Florida Statute section 61.401 to protect S.P.'s psychotherapist-patient privilege and to advance S.P.'s expressed position, independent of the GAL; (l) Find that Respondent's conduct regarding the DBT therapy referral to Tammy Berman constitutes neither willful noncompliance nor civil contempt, the OFW record establishing that Respondent identified a clinical limitation with the referred provider on June 25, 2026, notified Petitioner in writing the same day, and actively pursued an age-appropriate alternative in good faith and in consultation with S.P.'s treating clinical team; and (m) Grant such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.”
文本校勘说明Note on Textual Corrections
在编制本英文版本的过程中，发现原文存在以下明显错误，并已在上文呈现中予以更正：
During preparation of this English version, the following apparent errors in the original text were identified and corrected in the rendering above:
“Cantor toward the Tribunal”（对法庭的歌唱者）已更正为 “Candor toward the Tribunal”（对法庭的坦诚）（第4-3.3条）。
“Cantor toward the Tribunal” corrected to “Candor toward the Tribunal” (Rule 4-3.3).
关于30日裁定期间，“Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.330(1)” 已更正为 “2.330(j)”。
“Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.330(1)” corrected to “2.330(j)” regarding the 30-day ruling period.
脚注3与脚注4在正文中有标注，但其内容在源文件中缺失。
Footnotes 3 and 4 are marked in the text but their content is absent from the source document.
脚 注
在及时提交的再审申请处理完毕之前，本意见尚未终局。1 Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.
［原文未提供脚注3的内容。］3 [Footnote content not provided in the original text.]
［原文未提供脚注4的内容。］4 [Footnote content not provided in the original text.]
文本校勘说明
在编制本英文版本的过程中，发现原文存在以下明显错误，并已在上文呈现中予以更正：
· “Cantor toward the Tribunal”（对法庭的歌唱者）已更正为 “Candor toward the Tribunal”（对法庭的坦诚）（第4-3.3条）。
· 关于30日裁定期间，“Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.330(1)” 已更正为 “2.330(j)”。
· 脚注3与脚注4在正文中有标注，但其内容在源文件中缺失。
Lisandrillo v. Palozzi · No. 4D2026-2262
中英对照全文精读 · 下篇（共三篇）译文仅供学习参考，法律效力以英文原文为准
免责声明 本文为学习研究用途的中英对照整理，译文仅供阅读参考，法律效力以英文原文为准。所涉判例、法条如有出入，请以官方发布文本为准。