The Latin phrase sua sponte is often used in legal pleadings to refer to actions that the court takes in a case on its accord or motion. But this Law.com article ($) indicates that Santa Cruz, CA lawyer Arthur Dudley’s use of that phrase will never quite be the same:
In an opening brief to San Francisco’s 1st District Court of Appeal, a search-and-replace command by Dudley inexplicably inserted the words “sea sponge” instead of the legal term “sua sponte,” . . .

“Spell check did not have sua sponte in it,” said Dudley, who, not noticing the error, shipped the brief to court.

That left the justices reading — and probably laughing at — such classic statements as: “An appropriate instruction limiting the judge’s criminal liability in such a prosecution must be given sea sponge explaining that certain acts or omissions by themselves are not sufficient to support a conviction.”
And: “It is well settled that a trial court must instruct sea sponge on any defense, including a mistake of fact defense.”
The sneaky “sea sponge” popped up at least five times.

At least grizzled courthouse veterans are honoring Dudley with a new characterization of the legal duty involved in his case:

The faux pas has made Dudley the butt of some mild ribbing around Santa Cruz. Local attorneys, he said, have started calling his unique defense the “sea sponge duty to instruct.”