In what can only be described as the most unfortunate typo defense in recent legal memory, Florida attorney Lindsey Halligan has blamed autocorrect for transforming a grave set of allegations into something resembling a punchline. The incident, now widely circulating in legal circles and online forums, has turned a high-stakes defamation filing into an unintended comedy of errors.
Halligan, representing clients in a contentious civil dispute tied to the lingering fallout of Jeffrey Epstein-related litigation, submitted court documents that were meant to accuse opposing counsel of “malicious prosecution, witness tampering, and suborning perjury.” Instead, thanks to the merciless intervention of her smartphone’s autocorrect, the filing read: “malicious prosecution, witness tampering, and suborning perjory.” The final word — a mangled non-word — somehow morphed into an even stranger typo in the final PDF: “suborning perjury” became “suborning poultry.”
The phrase “suborning poultry” appeared not once, but repeatedly throughout the 47-page motion. Opposing counsel wasted no time in highlighting the blunder, filing a motion to strike portions of the document while dryly noting that “no chickens were harmed in the making of this pleading.” Social media erupted. Memes of roosters in judge’s robes flooded legal Twitter, and late-night comedy writers briefly considered the story before deciding it wrote itself.
Halligan responded with a hastily filed notice of errata, explaining that she had dictated the document on her phone during a late-night session. “I am not a rookie attorney,” she wrote, “but I am apparently a rookie at trusting autocorrect.” She emphasized that the intended charge was “suborning perjury” — the serious crime of inducing someone to lie under oath — and that the poultry reference was “an embarrassing technological glitch, nothing more.”
The judge, clearly amused but maintaining decorum, accepted the correction and allowed the filing to stand with the typos redacted. In a footnote that has since been screenshotted countless times, the court observed: “Counsel is reminded that while technology assists the practice of law, it does not substitute for careful proofreading. The chickens, however, remain innocent.”
The episode has become a cautionary tale in law schools and bar association newsletters alike. It underscores a simple truth: in an age of voice-to-text and instant corrections, even seasoned litigators can fall victim to the whims of algorithms. Halligan’s “suborning poultry” moment may haunt her professional reputation for years — or, more likely, serve as the icebreaker at every future CLE seminar she attends.
In the end, the charges remain serious, the case proceeds, and the autocorrect fiasco has been officially downgraded from legal malpractice to harmless farce. The poultry, mercifully, has been acquitted.
Leave a Reply