Stephens & Stevens Marital & Family Law

In re Amendments to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515, No. SC2026-0673 (Fla. May 28, 2026).

In re Representations by Signers of Filings, No. AOSC26-12 (Fla. May 28, 2026).

The Florida Supreme Court has now spoken on artificial intelligence in court filings.

Several circuits, including Palm Beach County, had started issuing their own administrative orders requiring lawyers and litigants to disclose whether artificial intelligence was used in preparing filings, along with various certification requirements. While those orders were understandable, the Supreme Court recognized the obvious problem: Florida was heading toward a patchwork of different AI rules depending on what courthouse you happened to be filing in.

That ends now.

Effective June 15, 2026, Rule 2.515(d)(2) is amended so that every signer of a court filing represents that “the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited.” The rule applies to lawyers and self-represented litigants. The Court also expressly authorized sanctions for filings inconsistent with that representation, after notice and an opportunity to be heard. Those sanctions may include reprimand, contempt, striking the document, dismissal, costs, attorneys’ fees, or other sanctions.

The companion administrative order is equally important. Circuit courts may no longer impose their own AI disclosure or certification requirements through local administrative orders, court policies, judicial practices and procedures, or other means. The statewide rule controls.

The takeaway is simple.

The issue is not whether AI helped draft something. The issue is whether the filing is accurate.

AI may be a useful tool. But it is not a lawyer. It does not carry a Bar card. It does not sign the pleading. It does not stand before the judge when the case cite is fake, the quotation is wrong, or the authority does not say what the filing claims it says.

You do.

So the new rule should not terrify competent lawyers. It should simply remind us of what was always true: when we sign a filing, we own it. Every case cited should exist. Every quote should be verified. Every proposition should be checked. And if AI was involved anywhere in the process, that only increases the need for human review, not the other way around.

This is a good, practical statewide solution. It avoids a county-by-county maze of AI disclosures while keeping the focus where it belongs: accuracy, integrity, and accountability in court filings.