Florida Supreme Court Sets New Standard for AI Use in Court Filings

Posted on June 23, 2026

Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools have rapidly become a fixture of modern life – now extending into legal practice. Attorneys and non-attorneys across Florida and the country are turning to generative AI platforms to assist with legal research, brief writing, and the drafting of court filings. But with convenience comes risk, and the Florida Supreme Court has now stepped in to address one of the most serious risks plaguing the legal community: hallucinated authorities.¹   

What the New Rule Requires

On May 28, 2026, by its own motion, the Florida Supreme Court amended Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2) to require the signer of a document filed in any Florida court to represent that “the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited.²”  This amendment applies to all attorneys and unrepresented parties in the state of Florida.

Under the amended rule, a court may, on its own motion or by motion of a party, “impose sanctions for any filing inconsistent with [such] representation after providing the signer a notice and opportunity to be heard.” Such sanctions may include reprimand, contempt, striking of the document, dismissal of the action, costs, attorneys’ fees, or other sanctions. 

Why Now? The Problem of AI Hallucinations

The Court’s amendment and accompanying opinion speak directly to the problem driving this change. Generative AI tools are being used as drafting and research aids for court filings throughout Florida but are also being used for broader substantive work. Generative AI tools can be helpful, as acknowledged by the Court, but users should recognize the documented and dangerous flaw of AI “hallucinations.” AI systems can generate content that “appears plausible but is in fact inaccurate, including fabricated or ‘hallucinated’ authorities.”

This problem is not theoretical. Courts around the country have confronted attorneys who submitted briefs citing cases that do not exist. In some of these cases, the filing attorneys either did not verify the citations or were unaware the AI had invented them entirely. Just recently, the Second DCA referred a local attorney to the bar for citing hallucinated case law.³  

During the early stages of AI implementation in the practice of law, a Florida attorney appearing in the Middle District of Florida was suspended from the District for one year, fined, and ordered to complete various ethics classes, in part, for his misuse of AI tools.⁴  A total of 26 problematic cases were cited in four separate pleadings before the Court. Erroneous case law citations ranged from mismatched names of the case to misrepresented case holdings to completely fictitious cases. This attorney’s unprofessional conduct, however, extended beyond AI usage and included refusing to confer with counsel, yelling and hanging up on opposing counsel, and failing to provide any response to opposing counsel’s request for copies of cited legal authorities. 

The Florida Supreme Court’s amendment is a direct response to this reality. By requiring signers to affirmatively represent the accuracy of cited authorities, the Court places the responsibility squarely where it belongs: on the attorney or the pro se party submitting the filing.  

Statewide Uniformity 

One of the Court’s stated purposes for this amendment was to create a statewide, uniform standard. Prior to this amendment, individual circuit courts across Florida issued their own administrative orders addressing AI disclosures and certification requirements for court filings. Those orders varied in their requirements and potential for implementation of sanctions, creating an inconsistent landscape for attorneys practicing in multiple circuits. 

The new amended rule places those diverse circuit court orders with a single statewide standard.  Significantly, the new amended rule also applies to unrepresented parties who have vastly employed AI tools in court filings.  Florida attorneys no longer need to navigate a circuit-by-circuit checklist of AI-related filing requirements.

What This Means for Florida Attorneys and Their Clients

For Florida attorneys, the takeaway is clear: if you use AI tools to assist with any court filing, you are now expressly responsible for verifying the accuracy of every legal authority cited. This obligation applies equally to unrepresented parties who rely on AI tools to draft motions or briefs.  In either instance, a lawyer or non-lawyer who submits fabricated citations, case holdings, or case law will face serious penalties.  This amended rule is a step forward for litigants in the Florida court system.  Clients benefit when they do not incur unnecessary and excessive legal fees because their attorney must spend wasteful time and resources to respond to and redress hallucinated case law in motions.  

The Broader Conversation About AI and the Law

At Massey Law Group, we have been closely monitoring and intentionally focusing on the intersection of AI and legal practice. AI tools are proliferating in the legal space, like many other industries, at a pace that has outrun the regulatory and ethical frameworks designed to govern them. There are no state or federal licensing schemes for AI technology, and the tools themselves are not tailored to the demands of legal and ethical decision-making. The risk of bias and error in AI-generated content is real and well-documented. 

The Florida Supreme Court’s action is a meaningful step forward. It does not attempt to ban AI, nor does it pretend AI is not being widely used by attorneys and non-attorneys alike. Instead, it accomplishes what courts are uniquely positioned to effectuate – it establishes accountability. An attorney who signs a document is accountable for the veracity of the content of that document. That principle predates AI by centuries, and the new rule simply ensures that a professional’s accountability for accuracy and competency also inures in the AI era sprinting ahead. 

The rule is also a signal that more regulation is likely coming. Courts, bar associations, and legislatures are paying attention to how AI is impacting our legal practice, and Florida’s amendment is part of a growing national conversation about how to protect the integrity of the judicial system while allowing practitioners and unrepresented parties to benefit from new technology. 

This coverage of Amended Rule 2.515 continues Massey Law Group’s series on AI and its widespread impacts on the legal community and the clients we serve. For previous coverage, see blogs by Starlett Massey, Attorney and Founding Shareholder, and Masheika E. Allgood, Founder of AllAI Consulting, LLC, “The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Practice of Law” and “The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Our Clients.” The attorneys at Massey Law Group are committed to centering AI discussions to engage with our clients and colleagues in informed, intentional spaces. 

1 https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-news/supreme-court-amends-rules-to-address-ai-use-in-court-filings/
2 In re: Amends. to Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.515, Case No. SC2026-0673 (Fla. 2026).
3 https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/florida-lawyer-blasted-for-not-signing-own-ai-gaffe-apology
4 https://www.msba.org/site/site/content/News-and-Publications/News/General-News/Faux-AI-Cases-Lead-to-Suspension.aspx