# Akerlund v. Atlas Air: a federal appeals court refers a former Florida lawmaker to its lawyer-conduct committee over AI-hallucinated citations — filed twice

> In Akerlund v. Atlas Air, Inc. (No. 24-11033), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a COVID-19-policy employment suit and, in a published opinion, faulted the plaintiffs' counsel, Anthony F. Sabatini — a former member of the Florida House of Representatives — for filing appellate briefs 'replete with fake and hallucinated citations' generated by artificial intelligence. The court found his opening brief relied on 'at least eight' nonexistent cases, and that the eight cases he later tried to substitute were 'also hallucinated.' Holding that 'By outsourcing his legal work to an AI algorithm, Sabatini violated his ethical duties to both his clients and this Court,' the court said it would, through the Chief Judge, refer him to the Committee on Lawyer Qualifications and Conduct. The sanction is non-monetary; there is no dollar fine.

- Verification status: pending
- Case type: deployment
- Provider: No AI product named or adjudicated — the court found counsel outsourced his legal work to 'an AI algorithm' and filed briefs 'generated by AI tools,' but identified no specific tool
- Client: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit — Akerlund v. Atlas Air, Inc., No. 24-11033 (FOR PUBLICATION), opinion by Grant, Circuit Judge (Before Rosenbaum, Grant, and Kidd, Circuit Judges); on appeal from S.D. Fla. (No. 1:22-cv-23519-KMM). Sanctioned attorney: Anthony F. Sabatini (plaintiffs-appellants' counsel; former Florida state legislator), Courts / legal (AI-governance honest-negative) (named)
- Sector: legal / US / cross
- Canonical URL: https://theinternetninja.com/stories/akerlund-v-atlas-air-11th-cir-sabatini-ai-fabricated-hallucinated-citations-committee-referral-2026/
- Source: The Internet Ninja (theinternetninja.com), independent verified-proof platform

## Outcomes

| Metric | Before | After |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Monetary sanction: None — no dollar fine; the sanction is a disciplinary referral |  |  |
| Sanction imposed: Published finding of AI-fabricated citations + referral, through the Chief Judge, to the Eleventh Circuit's Committee on Lawyer Qualifications and Conduct (11th Cir. Rules, Addendum 8, r. 2(C)) |  |  |
| Scale of fabrication: At least eight nonexistent 'hallucinated' cases in the opening brief; eight further hallucinated cases in the proposed reply brief — 'not once but twice' |  |  |
| AI tool identified: None named — the court attributes the fabrications to 'an AI algorithm' / 'AI tools' generically |  |  |

## Verification method

Independent-origin appellate document. Primary is the published Eleventh Circuit opinion (No. 24-11033, 14pp), retrieved from the official Eleventh Circuit opinions host (media.ca11.uscourts.gov) and byte-tied to four organic Wayback captures (sha1-b32 OEHXKPZ3SYIJHI34TQZASRKXLIWCEPZP = CDX digest, earliest capture 20260712094818). The AI-hallucination finding and disciplinary referral are corroborated by two mutually independent archive-bound newsrooms — Reason/The Volokh Conspiracy (which reproduces the opinion) and the ABA Journal (independent narration) — two_independent on the critical claim. The exact eight-plus-eight count is Tier-1 primary + Volokh (one_independent), carried as a supporting claim.

## Full case file

## The problem
A group of commercial-aviation employees sued Atlas Air, Inc. and Flight Services International,
LLC over the companies' COVID-19-era mask, testing, and vaccination policies. The district court
dismissed their third amended complaint, and they appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit. The court affirmed — but it also had a second problem to address. As the opinion
opens: "We are more candid than usual in this assessment because the plaintiffs' counsel Anthony F.
Sabatini has not been candid with us. Sabatini filed multiple briefs replete with fake and
hallucinated citations." Sabatini is a former member of the Florida House of Representatives.

## What was built
This is not a technology deployment; it is an AI-governance outcome. The court found that the
fabrication was not a stray error but a pattern produced by unverified AI drafting. Sabatini's
"opening brief relies on at least eight such cases, including one purportedly decided by this
Court." After the defendants identified the problem, he acknowledged in a proposed reply brief that
the citations were "erroneous or unverifiable" and sought to withdraw eight cases — but, the court
noted, "the eight cases Sabatini 'withdrew' did not match a single one of the eight hallucinated
cases in his opening brief. And not only were they not the right cases—all eight were also
hallucinated." The court concluded that Sabatini had signed his name to "briefs filled with
hallucinated citations—not once but twice," and, more broadly, that "By outsourcing his legal work
to an AI algorithm, Sabatini violated his ethical duties to both his clients and this Court." No
specific AI product is named in the opinion.

## The outcome
On July 10, 2026, in a published opinion by Circuit Judge Grant (joined by Circuit Judges Rosenbaum
and Kidd), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal "for lack of personal jurisdiction and
failure to state a claim." As to counsel, the sanction is non-monetary: "In a separate order, this
Court, through the Chief Judge, will refer the matter to the Committee on Lawyer Qualifications and
Conduct." There is no dollar fine. Two mutually independent newsrooms corroborate the finding and
referral: Reason/The Volokh Conspiracy (which reproduces the opinion) and the ABA Journal, which
reported that the Eleventh Circuit "reprimanded a Florida lawyer and county official for filing
briefs that included 'fake and hallucinated' artificial intelligence-generated information," that
Sabatini "produced multiple briefs containing nonexistent citations," and that "The 11th Circuit
will refer Sabatini to the court's Committee on Lawyer Qualifications and Conduct."

## Path to green
The origin is a published federal appellate opinion — self-authenticating; no client-confirmation
call is booked against the court, and no green badge is claimed here. There is no monetary figure to
confirm. Before any human sign-off, the checker should confirm the July 10, 2026 opinion has not
been disturbed by rehearing or en banc review (Eleventh Circuit docket, No. 24-11033) and that the
separate Chief-Judge order referring Sabatini to the Committee on Lawyer Qualifications and Conduct
issued. No AI product is named in the record, and no claim here asserts one.