by: Liz McCausland, Florida Lawyers Mutual Resources and Services Division Manager
Artificial intelligence continues to transform the practice of law, offering attorneys new tools for research, drafting, and productivity. At the same time, courts across the country have grappled with a growing problem: AI-generated citations and legal authorities that appear legitimate but do not actually exist.
In response, the Florida Supreme Court recently amended Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515 to address the use of artificial intelligence in court filings.
What Changed?
Effective June 15, 2026, Rule 2.515(d)(2) now requires the signer of a court filing to represent that:
“The legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited.”
The amendment applies to attorneys and self-represented litigants alike.
The Court also expressly authorized trial and appellate courts to impose sanctions when a filing is inconsistent with that representation, after providing the signer notice and an opportunity to be heard. Potential sanctions may include reprimand, contempt, striking of the document, dismissal of proceedings, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other appropriate sanctions.
Why the Change?
The Court recognized that generative artificial intelligence tools can be valuable drafting and research aids. However, the Court also noted that these tools can produce fabricated or “hallucinated” cases, quotations, and legal authorities that appear plausible but are inaccurate or entirely nonexistent. The amendment is intended to promote the accuracy and integrity of court filings while providing a statewide, uniform approach to issues previously addressed through a patchwork of local circuit court administrative orders.
Importantly, the Court followed up the opinion with an Administrative Order that preempts any existing circuit-level administrative orders requiring AI certification or disclosure. The new statewide rule is now the controlling authority, and individual courts may not impose their own separate AI-related certification requirements through local administrative orders, court policies, or judicial practices. If your firm has been tracking and complying with circuit-specific AI orders, those are now superseded.
What Does This Mean for Florida Lawyers?
The new rule does not prohibit the use of artificial intelligence. Rather, it reinforces a principle that has always existed: lawyers are responsible for the accuracy of the documents they file. As Board of Governors member Gordon Glover, co-chair of the Bar’s Special Committee on Artificial Intelligence Tools & Resources, put it: generative AI is a tool, not a substitute for professional judgment. Lawyers can benefit from these technologies, but they must independently verify the accuracy of everything submitted to the court.
In practical terms, attorneys who use AI tools for research, drafting, summarization, or editing should ensure that:
- All cited cases, statutes, and other authorities actually exist and are verified against original sources.
- Citations are accurate and complete, including quotations checked against the original text.
- Legal analysis generated by AI is independently reviewed before filing.
- The same level of professional scrutiny is applied to every court filing, regardless of how it was prepared. This includes filings drafted with the assistance of nonlawyer staff using AI tools.
A Risk Management Perspective
The amendment presents a practical opportunity for firms to review and strengthen their internal procedures around AI use. Having staff and counsel know what the rule requires and verify their filings accordingly is the first step. But firms that go further and build processes around AI use will be better positioned as these tools become more deeply integrated into legal practice. This might include establishing clear protocols for attorney supervision of AI-assisted work product, documenting verification steps taken before filing, and implementing quality-control checkpoints for court submissions. The goal is not to avoid AI altogether, but to use it thoughtfully and responsibly while maintaining the same professional standards that have always governed legal practice.
The most significant takeaway is straightforward: technology does not shift responsibility away from the lawyer signing the filing.
Key Dates
- May 28, 2026 — Florida Supreme Court issues opinion amending Rule 2.515(d)(2)
- June 15, 2026 — Amendments become effective
- August 11, 2026 — Deadline to file comments with the Court (attorneys must file via the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal)
Links to Resources
- Florida Supreme Court opinion: In re: Amendments to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515, Case No. SC2026-0673 (May 28, 2026)
- Florida Bar News: Supreme Court Amends Rules to Address AI Use in Court Filings (May 29, 2026)
