GREEN v. STATE (2026)

By prior order, we dismissed the habeas corpus petitions in these four consolidated cases with a warning against the unlicensed practice of law. This opinion follows to explain our reasoning and hopefully curtail similar instances of the unlicensed practice of law in these and other cases.

Petitioners were arrested for felony fraud offenses and are being detained pending trial in the Broward County jail. The habeas corpus petitions, which appear AI-generated and are nearly identical, attempt to challenge petitioners’ pretrial release conditions. As jail inmates, petitioners have no access to the internet and cannot file documents electronically.

However, the pro se petitions were filed through the court system's e-filing portal. The documents apparently were prepared and filed by a non-lawyer on petitioners’ behalf. By prior order, we dismissed the petitions as unauthorized and served copies of the order on petitioners at the jail. See Forman v. State Dep't of Child. & Fams., 956 So. 2d 476, 477 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (“[P]leadings filed by a non-lawyer on behalf of another are a nullity.”). The person (or persons) filing these documents is likely engaged in the unlicensed practice of law, which is a third-degree felony. § 454.23, Fla. Stat. (2026).

Any further unauthorized filing will result in referral of this matter to the Florida Bar and the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit State Attorney's Office for investigation. See R. Reg. Fla. Bar 10-1.2 (“The Florida Bar, as an official arm of the court, is charged with the duty of considering, investigating, and seeking the prohibition of matters pertaining to the unlicensed practice of law and the prosecution of alleged offenders.”).

Petitions dismissed with admonition.

Gerber, C.J.

Gerber, C.J., Levine and Forst, JJ., concur.