We’ve all heard the horror stories: the growing trend of attorneys across Florida relying on artificial intelligence (“AI”) that generates inaccurate or even completely fabricated citations to legal authority in court filings. As a result, circuits across the state began implementing disclosure and certification requirements about the use of AI in filings, notably beginning with Miami-Dade’s 11th Judicial Circuit Administrative Order on January 15, and Broward County’s 17th Judicial Circuit Administrative Order on January 26. Other judicial circuits around the state followed suit. While well-intended, the practical consequence was a patchwork of orders across the state with varying requirements placed on attorneys and pro se litigants.
To combat this, the Florida Supreme Court got ahead of the issue by amending Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2) (Representation by Signer) through its own motion on May 28. The amended rule, § 2.515(d)(2)(D), which took effect June 15 at 12:01 a.m., reads as follows:
“(D) the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited.
The Court may, on its own motion or the motion of a party, impose sanctions for any filing inconsistent with this representation after providing the signer notice and opportunity to be heard. Such sanctions may include reprimand, contempt, striking of the document, dismissal of proceedings, costs, attorneys’ fees, or other sanctions.”[1]
While the amended rule itself does not specifically address artificial intelligence, the court made its purpose clear in its subsequent Administrative Order:
“Over the past several months, several judicial circuits have adopted administrative orders requiring filers or signers of court documents to disclose the use of artificial intelligence in the creation of such documents and to certify the accuracy of the information contained therein. These orders, though reasonable and motivated by valid concerns, have created a patchwork of differing disclosure and certification obligations for the parties and attorneys who participate in the court system throughout our State. The Court believes that a uniform, statewide approach to AI-related disclosure and certification would better balance the needs of the court system with the interests of the external users of that system.”
The Supreme Court Order preempts any judicial circuit administrative orders on this issue, ensuring that Florida courts have a uniform approach and procedure to address the growing trend of inaccurate or completely hallucinated case citations. What does this mean for attorneys? A uniform compliance standard across the state that aligns with existing ethical duties. There is no prohibition on the use of innovative AI tools, and attorneys must do what they should always do: check and Shepardize every citation within one’s filings. Hopefully, the Court’s amendment of Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2) will result in fewer instances of attorneys citing fictitious cases and disciplinary actions as a result.
[1] IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF GENERAL PRACTICE AND JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION 2.515 No. SC2026-0673 (May 28, 2026)