ARTICLE · 1121336
律师使用AI工具提交的过于冗长的文书材料被法官痛批
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA · FOURTH DISTRICT
佛罗里达州上诉法院 · 第四地区
散弹式论点与「法律呓语」
LORIE JEAN LISANDRILLO v. RENEE PALOZZI · No. 4D2026-2262
中英对照 · 全文精读 中篇（共三篇）2026年9月16日 · 格罗斯法官（Gross, J.）
本篇承接上篇 本篇精读第七至第十节：法院逐条检视回避动议提出的 15 项理由（A–O），指出其中大部分只是对不利裁决的抱怨、或与卷宗记载相悖，并正式提出「议题堆砌」问题。
七、散弹式论点
Scattershot Arguments
该动议提出了以下理由，本院逐字照录如下：
The motion raises the following grounds, which we reproduce verbatim:
A“法院在下午1:30宣布合意命令（具体而言是其中的费用安排）具有约束力且不可复审，随后又于下午3:30，在没有动议、没有通知、没有证据的情况下，将其作为藐视制裁而予以修改——而就在此前，它刚刚告知被申请人无权对该命令提出异议。”
A. “The Court Declared the Agreed Order's (Specifically, the Fee Arrangement) Binding and Unreviewable at 1:30 P.M., Then Modified It as a Contempt Sanction at 3:30 P.M. Without Motion, Notice, or Evidence, After Having Just Told Respondent She Had No Standing to Contest It.”
B“法院在下午1:30凭空认定已就下午4:30动议的审理取得同意：这一认定与笔录直接矛盾，并且法院无视了其自身的排期令禁止变更听证时间这一事实。”
B. “The Court Manufactured a Finding of Consent to Adjudicate the 4:30 P.M. Motion at 1:30 P.M.: a Finding Directly Contradicted by the Transcript, While Ignoring That Its Own Scheduling Order Prohibited Any Change to the Hearing Time.”
C“诉讼监护人自己的律师当庭披露：她受聘是为保护诉讼监护人的执照（而非履行任何调查职能）；而法院在朗读法条之后，得出了与法条字面含义完全相反的结论，并核准了这一安排。”
C. “The GAL's Own Attorney Disclosed on the Record That She Was Retained to Protect the GAL's License (Not for Any Investigative Function), and the Court Approved the Arrangement After Reading the Statute Aloud and Reaching the Opposite of Its Plain Meaning.”
D“法院在传唤第一位证人之前，就断然拒绝接收任何当庭的证据说明（proffer），从而事先封死了为形成可复审记录而设的法定机制。”
D. “The Court Categorically Refused to Receive Any Proffer of Proof on the Record, Before the First Witness Was Called, Foreclosing in Advance the Statutory Mechanism for Creating a Reviewable Record.”
E“法院驳回了两项已充分书面陈述、无人反对、共含74段的动议，却对被告方援引的三十余项权威判例未予处理、未作区分，甚至未提及其中任何一项。”
E. “The Court Denied Two Fully-Briefed, Unopposed Motions Comprising 74 Paragraphs Without Addressing, Distinguishing, or Acknowledging a Single One of the Thirty-plus Controlling Authorities Respondent Cited.”
F“法院适用了单向的证据标准：以自创的‘放弃异议’为由，对申请人的证人无限制地采纳传闻证据，却对被告方提出的每一类医疗证据都予以封堵。”
F. “The Court Applied a One-Way Evidentiary Standard: Admitting Unlimited Hearsay for Petitioner's Witnesses Under an Invented Waiver While Blocking Every Category of Medical Evidence Offered on Respondent's Behalf.”
G“在申请人举证完毕后，法院并未询问被申请人是否希望进行答辩；它直接进入结案辩论，随后又因自己一手造成的局面而训斥被申请人的律师。”
G. “After Petitioner Rested, the Court Did Not Ask Whether Respondent Wished to Present a Defense; It Moved Directly to Closing Arguments, Then Admonished Respondent's Counsel for the Outcome the Court Had Engineered.”
H“法院在被申请人的律师未对证人进行交叉询问一事上予以训斥，而此前它已系统性地封死了使交叉询问具有意义的一切机制。”
H. “The Court Admonished Respondent's Counsel for Not Cross-Examining Witnesses, After Having Systematically Foreclosed Every Mechanism That Would Have Made Cross-Examination Meaningful.”
I“法院在藐视听证结束时判付律师费、重新分配诉讼监护人费用并准予补足探视时间，而这一切均非藐视动议中的待决事项，也无证据支持，更未经事先通知。”
I. “The Court Awarded Attorney's Fees, Reallocated GAL Fees, and Granted Makeup Timesharing at the Conclusion of the Contempt Hearing, None of Which Was Pending in the Contempt Motion, Supported by Evidence, or the Subject of Prior Notice.”
J“藐视认定所依据的，恰是法院本已排除的证据；而本可回应藐视指控的医疗文件，早在藐视动议提交前三天就已为对方律师所持有。”
J. “The Contempt Finding Rests on Evidence the Court Excluded, While the Medical Documentation That Would Have Answered the Contempt Allegation Had Been in Opposing Counsel's Possession for Three Days Before the Contempt Motion Was Filed.”
K“在离婚程序中尚未举行任何实质性听证之前，诉讼监护人即向被申请人的律师披露其与本法院之间存在私人关系，并称这种关系将使她免于被撤换；而此后的卷宗记载在每一个节点上都与该陈述相符。”
K. “Prior to Any Substantive Hearing ever Occurring in the Dissolution Proceedings, the GAL Disclosed to Respondent's Counsel a Personal Relationship With This Court That She Stated Would Prevent Her Removal, and the Subsequent Record Is Consistent With That Statement at Every Point.”
L“法院的口头裁决将被申请人提交的家庭暴力相关文书，曲解为本案离婚程序中的紧急动议滥用，把家庭暴力受害者行使法定权利的行为定性为恶意诉讼。”
L. “The Court's Oral Rulings Mischaracterized Respondent's Domestic Violence Filings as Emergency Motion Abuse in This Dissolution Case, Characterizing the Exercise of a Domestic Violence Victim's Statutory Rights as Bad-Faith Litigation.”
M“值得注意的是，第四地区上诉法院此前曾因卡尔布西亚法官在对待医疗权威证据方面偏离法律的基本要求而撤销其裁判，而本法院如今在同一类证据上却采取了截然相反的立场。”
M. “Notably, the Fourth District Court of Appeal Has Previously Reversed This Court, Judge Carbuccia, for Departure from Essential Requirements of Law in Its Treatment of Medical Authority, and This Court Has Now Adopted the Diametrically Opposite Position on the Same Type of Evidence.”3
N“两次听证中，没有任何一份证物被采纳为证据：每一项裁决都建立在一个完全由辩论与传闻证言构成的‘记录’之上。”
N. “Not One Exhibit Was Admitted Into Evidence at Either Hearing: Every Ruling Was Made on a Record Consisting Entirely of Argument and Hearsay Testimony.”
O“法院对被申请人律师的态度——包括反复弄错该律师的姓名和性别、笔录中记录在案的敌对行为，以及在该律师音频故障期间仍继续进行的程序——反映出一种不对称的对待，任何理性谨慎之人都会担心其并非中立。”
O. “The Court's Demeanor Toward Respondent's Counsel, Including Repeated Misidentification of Counsel by Name and Gender, Hostile Conduct Documented in the Transcript, and Proceedings That Continued While Counsel's Audio Malfunctioned, Reflecting Asymmetric Treatment That a Reasonably Prudent Person Would Fear Was Not Neutral.”
这些论点大多只是对不利于己的裁决表示不满，而不利裁决并不构成回避事由。Jackson v. State, 599 So. 2d 103, 107 (Fla. 1992)。
Most of these arguments merely complain about adverse rulings, which are not grounds to disqualify. Jackson v. State, 599 So. 2d 103, 107 (Fla. 1992).
这些论点中许多是无谓的。例如，理由A与B抱怨法院就紧急动议作出裁决的时机。卷宗显示，是律师本人请求先行辩论其动议。法院并无义务在下午4:30再次审理该动议。
Many of these arguments are frivolous. For example, grounds A and B complain about the timing of the court's ruling on the emergency motion. The record shows that counsel asked to argue her motion first. The court did not have to hear the motion again at 4:30 p.m.
另一些论点则与卷宗相悖。程序并没有在该律师音频故障的情况下继续进行。相反，笔录显示：在 Zoom 听证过程中，法院多次提醒该律师，她处于“静音”状态、无法被听见。
Other arguments are contrary to the record. The proceedings did not continue while counsel's audio malfunctioned. Instead, the transcript shows that, several times during the Zoom hearing, the court alerted counsel that she was “muted” and could not be heard.
法院并未将家庭暴力相关文书定性为恶意诉讼。
The court did not characterize the domestic violence filings as bad faith litigation.
申请和回避动议声称法院驳回了综合申请，但实际上，法院是因该申请未被排期审理而反复拒绝处理它。
The petition and disqualification motion claim the court denied the Omnibus Application, but the court repeatedly refused to address it because it was not set for hearing.
综合申请提出了许多与回避动议和本申请中重复出现的相同无谓论点。例如，该律师主张诉讼监护人因未提交报告而不能发表意见，这一主张毫无根据。法条恰恰作出了相反规定。
The Omnibus Application raises many of the same frivolous arguments repeated in the motion to disqualify and petition.4 For example, counsel's argument that the GAL cannot be heard because she had not filed a report is baseless. The statute provides to the contrary.
诉讼监护人可以向法院陈述，并向法院提出书面或口头建议。诉讼监护人应当提交书面报告，报告可包含建议以及关于儿童意愿的陈述。除法院放弃该期限要求外，该报告必须在将被提交的听证举行前至少20日提交并送达各方当事人。
The guardian ad litem may address the court and make written or oral recommendations to the court. The guardian ad litem shall file a written report which may include recommendations and a statement of the wishes of the child. The report must be filed and served on all parties at least 20 days prior to the hearing at which it will be presented unless the court waives such time limit.
《佛罗里达州法规》第61.403(5)条（2025年）（着重号为原文所加）；另见同法第61.403(6)条（2025年）（“诉讼监护人通过律师行事时，可为推进其职能而提交其认为适当或必要的诉状、动议或救济申请。”）（着重号为原文所加）。
§ 61.403(5), Fla. Stat. (2025) (emphasis added); see also § 61.403(6), Fla. Stat. (2025) (“A guardian ad litem, acting through counsel, may file such pleadings, motions, or petitions for relief as the guardian ad litem deems appropriate or necessary in furtherance of the guardian's function.”) (emphasis added).
本案中的诉讼监护人之所以无法完成报告，是因为申请人切断了与孩子的接触。诉讼监护人正当向法院申请救济，法院也正当地为其指定了协助律师——尤其考虑到该律师提交了数量庞大的文书与邮件。
The GAL in this case could not complete her report because petitioner cut off contact with the child. The GAL properly applied for relief from the court, and the court properly appointed counsel to assist the GAL—especially in light of counsel's voluminous filings and email.
关于法院不允许律师在听证中进行答辩或辩论的主张，与卷宗相悖。被申请人举证完毕后，法院请申请人律师发言，后者表示：“没有，法官阁下。我坚持我提交的文书和我此前的异议。”
The allegation that the court did not allow counsel to present a defense or argument at the hearing is contrary to the record. After respondent closed her case, the court opened the floor to petitioner's counsel, who stated: “Nothing, Your Honor. I stand on my filings and my prior objections.”
同样，关于律师在藐视听证期间被阻止提出回避申请的主张，也与卷宗相悖。笔录显示：该律师在听证过程中的许多时点本都可以提出回避申请，但她没有这样做。
Likewise, the allegation that counsel was prevented from moving to disqualify during the contempt hearing is contrary to the record. The transcript shows that counsel could have moved to disqualify at many points during the hearing and did not do so.
这构成放弃异议，仅此一点即足以驳回。Fischer v. Knuck, 497 So. 2d 240, 243 (Fla. 1986)（“除能证明迟延具有正当理由外，回避申请若迟至提出方已遭受不利裁决之后才提出，即被视为不适时。”）。
This results in a waiver and alone merits denial. Fischer v. Knuck, 497 So. 2d 240, 243 (Fla. 1986) (“A motion for recusal is considered untimely when delayed until after the moving party has suffered an adverse ruling unless good cause for delay is shown.”).
八、法律呓语
Legal Gibberish
理由H中关于法官因律师未对证人进行交叉询问而予以训斥的主张，十分离奇。卷宗中并无对所谓训斥的任何引注或引文。动议在第77段辩称：
The allegation in ground H that the judge admonished counsel for not cross-examining witnesses is bizarre. No such citation or quotation of the alleged admonishment is in the record. At paragraph 77, the motion argues:
法院因该判断而训斥了她。由此形成的两难——一方面参与其中却被封杀……另一方面拒绝参与却遭训斥——不是一场公正的程序。而这正是这样一场程序的记录。
The Court admonished her for that judgment. The bind that creates, participate and get shut down on the one hand . . . decline and get admonished on the other, is not a fair proceeding. It is the record of one.
（原文使用粗体与斜体）。
(bold and italics in original).
这些文书常常（用粗体和斜体）强调一些看似随意的句子，使读者的注意力集中在最终被证明无关紧要的事实上。
The filings often emphasize (with bold and italics) seemingly random sentences causing the reader to focus on what turns out to be irrelevant facts.
而在这里，该动议强调的却是法律呓语。该动议与申请中还包含许多其他令人费解的论点。
Here, the motion emphasizes legal gibberish. The motion and petition contain many other puzzling arguments.
九、缺乏官方卷宗支持的主张
Arguments Not Supported by the Official Record
该动议的作者承认使用了非官方的“笔录初稿”，并主张：初审法院多次将律师称为“索罗卡先生”，且据称在听证中多次读错该律师的名字。
The author of the motion acknowledged using an unofficial “rough draft transcript” and argued that the trial court repeatedly referred to counsel as “Mr. Soroka” and allegedly mispronounced counsel's name numerous times during the hearing.
然而，官方笔录并未反映存在此类错误。动议未提供任何引注；而且值得注意的是，该律师在听证中从未就法官称其为“先生”或读错其名字提出过异议。尽管如此，动议仍暗示法官是在贬损该律师。
The official transcript, however, reflects no such mistakes. No citations are given, and notably, counsel never objected at the hearing to the judge referring to her as “Mr.” or mispronouncing her name. The motion, nevertheless, suggests that the judge was disparaging counsel.
本院怀疑，这些虚假论点是由 AI 从“笔录初稿”的转录错误中生成出来的。
We suspect that AI generated these bogus arguments from mistranscriptions in the “rough draft transcript.”
再次强调，法官不能因与卷宗相悖的事件而被要求回避。参见 Gregory, 118 So. 3d at 779–80。
Again, a judge cannot be disqualified based on events that are contrary to the record. See Gregory, 118 So. 3d at 779-80.
十、议题堆砌与未保留的争点
Issue Churning and Unpreserved Issues
本申请以及该律师在本案中的其他文书，都患上了 AI 生成法律文书日益普遍的一个毛病——“议题堆砌”（issue churning）。许多由 AI 生成或 AI 辅助的文书，都会大量抛撒散弹式论点。这种策略丝毫无助于维护当事人的利益，反而会降低胜诉的可能。
The petition, and counsel's other filings in this case, suffer from an increasing problem with AI-generated legal documents—issue churning. Many AI-generated or AI-assisted documents aggressively raise scattershot arguments. This tactic does nothing to further the interests of the client and instead hurts the chances of success.
在本案中，作者炮制出一堆虚假论点——其中一些甚至从未在下级法院提出过：
Here, the author churns out spurious arguments—some that were not even raised below:
“审理了未予通知的事项。”申请人主张：法院因该听证未被通知为证据性听证，而错误地作出了证据性认定。然而，藐视听证显然就是证据性听证。法院听取了证言，其中包括申请人的证言。
“Adjudication of matters not noticed.” Petitioner claims that the court erred in making evidentiary findings because the hearing was not noticed as evidentiary. The contempt hearing, however, was obviously evidentiary. The court took testimony, including from petitioner.
“一项被笔录所驳斥的同意认定。”笔录显示：是律师本人请求许可，并同意先行辩论其紧急动议。
“A consent finding the transcript refutes.” The transcript shows that counsel asked for permission and agreed to argue her emergency motion first.
“拒绝举行法院本已安排的听证。”申请人抱怨称：紧急动议原定于下午4:30审理，法院却在下午1:30的听证中将其驳回。
“Denial of a hearing the court had ordered.” Petitioner complains that the court denied the emergency motion at the 1:30 p.m. hearing when it was scheduled for 4:30 p.m.
“法庭预先作出判断。”该主张从未在下级法院提出。申请抱怨称，法院曾表示不将孩子交由诉讼监护人会构成藐视。并不存在这样的预先判断。
“Prejudgment from the bench.” No such claim was raised below. The petition complains that the court stated that failure to produce the child to the GAL would be contempt. No such prejudgment occurred.
“在卷宗上无法调和的裁决。”申请人主张法院的裁决前后矛盾，因为法院先认定申请人无权对诉讼监护人费用提出异议，随后又修改合意命令，要求其承担50%的诉讼监护人费用。
“Rulings irreconcilable on the record.” Petitioner claims the court ruled inconsistently because it found petitioner lacked standing to object to the GAL fees but later modified the agreed order to require her to pay 50% of the GAL fees.
“系统性地剥夺制作卷宗记录的机会。”再次强调：关于法院阻止律师提交证据、进行辩论或保留争点的主张，与卷宗相悖。
“Systematic denial of record-making.” Again, the allegation that the court prevented counsel from presenting evidence, making argument, or preserving issues is contrary to the record.
法院在回避动议提交后拖延10日才作出裁定，这印证了其对偏见的担忧。该规则要求法官在动议送达后30日内作出裁定。《佛罗里达州一般实践与司法行政规则》第2.330(j)条。法院拖延10日才裁定，并不构成回避的任何依据。
The court's 10-day delay in ruling after the motion to disqualify was filed confirms the fear of bias. The rule requires the judge to rule within 30 days of service of the motion. Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.330(j). The court's 10-day delay in ruling provides no basis for disqualification.
申请以一个“累积效应”的论点作结：
The petition concludes with a “cumulative effect” argument:
在一天之内，初审法院在两次拒绝将［申请人］的文书作为紧急事项处理之后，又宣布一名儿童处于紧急状态，此后还第三次以书面形式予以拒绝；在未予通知、未排期的情况下审理并驳回了证据性事项；又在听取了被质疑的受指定人、其次是［被申请人］的律师，并把［申请人］律师被迫作出的回应称为“同意”之后，审理并驳回了原定于另一时间审理的事项；驳回无人反对的动议，却未处理所援引的任何法律权威；正确朗读了法条却加以反向适用；在没有证据的情况下警告［申请人］某些行为构成藐视，九十分钟后即认定其藐视；排除了截至2026年6月12日各方律师手中已有的医疗建议与文件；只朝一个方向打开证据之门，反复封杀［申请人］律师每一次制作卷宗记录的尝试，并主动修改了一项合意命令。
In one day the trial court declared a child in an emergency posture after twice refusing to treat [petitioner]'s filings as emergencies, and has since refused a third time in writing; adjudicated and denied evidentiary matters not noticed or set for hearing, and adjudicated and denied matters set for another time after hearing the challenged appointee first, [respondent]'s counsel second, and called [petitioner]'s counsel's compelled response consent; denied unopposed motions without addressing any legal authority provided; read a statute correctly yet applied it backwards; warned [petitioner] that certain acts constitute contempt, without evidence, and then found contempt ninety minutes later; excluded the medical advice and documentation in all parties' counsel's possession as of June 12, 2026; opened an evidentiary door in one direction only, foreclosed [petitioner]'s counsel's every record-making attempt, repeatedly, and modified an agreed order on its own initiative.
这正是“议题堆砌”问题的典型表现。AI 炮制出一长串晦涩的论点，任何称职的律师都不应提出这些论点。律师在向法院提出论点时，必须运用独立判断。
This typifies the “issue churning” problem. AI churns out a laundry list of convoluted arguments that no competent lawyer should make. Counsel must exercise independent judgment when making arguments to a court.
这些论点呈现方式的非自然之处，进一步令本院怀疑使用了 AI。
The unnatural ways the arguments are presented further leads us to suspect AI was used.
但归根结底，这些内容究竟是由 AI 生成、由 AI 辅助，还是以其他方式产生，并无区别。律师有义务为其向法院提交的任何材料负责。
Ultimately, however, whether this was AI-generated, AI-assisted, or something else makes no difference. An attorney is obligated to stand behind any submission to a court.
Lisandrillo v. Palozzi · No. 4D2026-2262
中英对照全文精读 · 中篇（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。