Was Hodges v. Meridian Waste & Rieske v. AFS sanctioned over AI-generated citations?

Hodges v. Meridian Waste & Rieske v. AFS (M.D. Florida, January 16, 2026) is a documented matter involving citations that could not be verified against the reporters named. The recorded outcome was: Sanctions granted; ten bar-association talks required; fee amount deferred to joint report. No monetary penalty in this order.

Which AI tool was involved in Hodges v. Meridian Waste & Rieske v. AFS?

The order in Hodges v. Meridian Waste & Rieske v. AFS does not identify a specific generative tool by name. The court treated the citations as the product of an unverified AI-assisted drafting workflow.

January 16, 2026 · AI sanctions database

Hodges v. Meridian Waste & Rieske v. AFS

Hodges v. Meridian Waste & Rieske v. AFS is one matter in the Veritas record of US court proceedings involving AI-generated citations that could not be verified against the reporters named. The summary below is drawn from the underlying court document, linked at the foot of this page.

Court: M.D. Florida
Date: January 16, 2026
Party: Lawyer
AI tool: Not identified in the order
Outcome: Sanctions granted; ten bar-association talks required; fee amount deferred to joint report
Penalty: No monetary penalty in this order.

Professional sanction

What the record shows

After a hearing, the court granted Defendants' motion for sanctions where Plaintiff's counsel admitted filing briefs in two cases containing AI-generated citations that the court stated were fake. Crediting counsel's prompt remediation (which the court recited included a $7,000 payment for fees to correct the record, fee reductions, ethics/AI CLEs, and client notice), the court declined to refer counsel to the grievance committee or Florida Bar and instead required him to secure ten speaking opportunities at bar associations or law schools, directing the parties to file a joint report on satisfaction with fees paid or an affidavit seeking additional fees. The court stated that using AI as a legal-research tool does not alter the duty to provide accurate citations.

This entry reflects the court document as filed. The citations at issue could not be located in the reporters named at the time of the order. The reading here is descriptive of the public record and is not legal advice.

Source documents

Primary court document ↗

The test this filing did not run

Every matter in this record shares one mechanism: a citation that did not resolve to an opinion in the reporter named, in a brief that was filed before any verification step ran. Veritas runs that step. The Filing Risk Scanner extracts each citation, resolves it against reporter and public-record sources, and returns a verdict on each one — located, partial, or not located in reporter — before the brief is signed.

Run a free review Back to the full tracker →

Filed under · AI sanctions database · M.D. Florida

About this publication

Veritas is a pre-filing citation verification platform for law firms and in-house counsel. Every post on the audit log is written by the Veritas editorial team and cross-checked against the underlying sanctions order, standing order, or published opinion it references. Reporter citations are read in their named volumes. Quotations from court orders are checked against the docket.

The product was built by Andrew Zoll, founder of Veritas, who tracks generative AI sanctions in federal and state courts and turns each documented failure mode into verification logic the scanner runs. Veritas was built after the canonical Mata v. Avianca sanctions order made the verification gap a published failure mode of the bar.

AI sanctions database · Sample report · Pricing · Run a scan