The Florida Supreme Court has adopted a significant amendment to the Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration that will reshape how attorneys and self-represented litigants approach legal drafting in the age of generative artificial intelligence. Effective June 15, 2026, amended Rule 2.515(d)(2) requires the signer of any court filing to represent that all cited legal authorities actually exist and are accurately cited. Violations may be met with sanctions, including in cases where the inaccuracy stems from AI-generated hallucinated citations.
The amendment is a direct response to a growing problem in courts across the country: generative AI tools that fabricate plausible-sounding but nonexistent case law, statutes, and quotations. By placing the verification obligation squarely on the signer of the filing, the Florida Supreme Court has made clear that responsibility cannot be shifted to the technology. Whether a citation was generated by a junior associate, a contract attorney, or a large language model, the lawyer or party who signs the document bears the consequences.
Equally important is the rule's scope. Until now, Florida practitioners navigated a patchwork of varied orders issued at the circuit court level, each setting its own expectations for AI use and disclosure. The amended rule establishes a single statewide standard, providing welcome uniformity for firms with multi-jurisdictional practices and for clients seeking predictability in litigation costs and procedures.
For litigators and the clients they serve, the practical implications are immediate. Firms should review and, where necessary, implement rigorous citation-verification workflows before any filing leaves the office. That includes confirming that each case, statute, and regulation cited in a brief can be located in an authoritative legal database, that quotations are accurate, and that holdings are characterized faithfully. Internal policies governing the use of generative AI tools should be revisited to ensure attorneys understand both the permissible role of such tools and the personal accountability that attaches to signed filings.
Clients who rely on outside counsel in Florida may also wish to confirm that their litigation teams have adopted procedures consistent with the amended rule, particularly in matters involving high-volume briefing or expedited deadlines.
This article is provided for general informational purposes only. Clients facing specific questions about Florida court filings or the use of AI tools in litigation should seek tailored legal advice from qualified counsel.