The Florida Supreme Court amended its procedural rules to require document signers to attest that any legal authorities cited are real and accurate, effective June 15, 2026. The change echoes a similar rule adopted by New York and highlights mounting judicial concern over AI-generated briefs that cite nonexistent cases.
What the Florida rule requires
The amended certification rule, which took effect June 15, adds a specific obligation for anyone submitting papers to a Florida court. Signers must now represent that they have read the document, there are good grounds to support it, it was not filed to delay proceedings, and "the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited." The court set a 75-day comment window starting May 28, 2026, because the amendments had not been published for public feedback before adoption.
In its opinion, the court explained that while AI tools "can be helpful, they also can generate content that appears plausible but is in fact inaccurate, including fabricated or 'hallucinated' authorities." The primary reason for the change, the court wrote, was "to create a statewide, uniform replacement for varied circuit court administrative orders imposing disclosure and certification requirements about the use of artificial intelligence in filings." The rule is part of a growing conversation around AI for legal professionals, who must now navigate both the capabilities and the risks of these tools.
The competency debate
The new language drew sharp criticism from one legal technology commentator, who argued the rule merely restates duties that already exist under professional conduct codes. She wrote in a June 22 column that requiring lawyers to confirm their citations "borders on absurd" because verifying authorities before filing is a basic obligation. The problem, she said, is not technology but lawyer competence.
"This is a basic competency problem, and the current rules of professional conduct are more than sufficient," she wrote. Courts have always dealt with briefs containing mistaken citations or misstated law, the columnist noted, but previously those errors were treated as scrivener's mistakes. She contended that the surge in AI-related errors does not warrant new rules when existing standards already penalize negligent lawyering.
Why this matters for legal professionals
For lawyers practicing in Florida, the amended rule makes plain that a signature on a filing now carries an explicit promise that no AI hallucination slipped through. Whether practitioners view the change as redundant or overdue, it brings citation verification to the forefront at a moment when generative AI is deeply embedded in legal drafting. Lawyers should audit their review processes to confirm every citation's existence and accuracy before a document leaves the office - not because a new rule demands it, but because their professional duty always has.
Your membership also unlocks:
