FL 17th Circuit (Broward): Seventeenth Judicial Circuit (Broward) Administrative Order AO…

Do not file to this order

Broward filings are governed by Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2), effective June 15, 2026, not by this order. AOSC26-12 provides that Florida courts “may not impose” AI disclosure or certification requirements “whether through local administrative orders, court policies, judicial practices and procedures, or other means.”

The Seventeenth Circuit vacated this order in its entirety, effective June 15, 2026 at 12:01 a.m., by AO 2026-19-Gen, signed by Chief Judge Phillips on June 12, 2026. That order recites AOSC26-12 and the amendment to rule 2.515(d)(2) as the reason. It was posted to the circuit’s website only in September 2026, so for some weeks the circuit’s index continued to list Amendment 2 as current.

What the order required, and how it changed

Chief Judge Carol-Lisa Phillips issued AO 2026-03-Gen on January 26, 2026 with a disclosure-and-certification framework similar to the Eleventh Circuit’s AO 26-04, but going further: it required the filer to identify the specific AI tool used, not merely to state that AI was used. That tool-identification requirement was the order’s distinguishing feature, and the reason firms working across Miami-Dade and Broward maintained separate templates.

Amendment 2, signed May 19, 2026, narrowed the order substantially before the statewide rule displaced it:

1. Tool identification dropped. The requirement to name the specific AI tool was removed.
2. Research and copy-editing carved out. No disclosure for AI legal research platforms used for routine research, retrieving authorities, or cite-checking, nor for grammar, spelling, or clarity edits.
3. Disclosure relocated to the conclusion of the submission or immediately above the signature block.
4. Certification rewritten, adding an express acceptance of full responsibility.
5. Claude AI added to the enumerated examples of generative AI.

Amendment 2 was issued “in coordination with the Administrative Order No. 26-15 issued by the Eleventh Judicial Circuit,” so the two largest Florida circuits were converging on a narrower rule in the weeks before the Supreme Court preempted both.

The sanctions framework, while the order was operative, ran to contempt, striking pleadings or dismissal, fines and attorney’s fees, and referral to The Florida Bar. Self-represented litigants were subject to the same rules and consequences as attorneys.

Why the sequence is worth noting

Nine days separate Amendment 2 from SC2026-0673. A circuit that had adopted the state’s most demanding AI disclosure rule in January had, by May, dropped its tool-identification requirement and exempted the research tools most lawyers actually use. The statewide rule then removed disclosure obligations altogether in favour of a citation-accuracy duty. Read together, the trajectory is away from disclosure and toward verification, which is the more useful signal for a firm deciding where to invest process.

Scope

Seventeenth Judicial Circuit only (Broward County). For Miami-Dade matters, see the Eleventh Circuit AO 26-04 entry; for Palm Beach, see the Fifteenth Circuit AO 2.109-4/26 entry.

Primary source

• AO 2026-03-Gen (PDF)
• AO 2026-03-Gen (Amendment 2) (PDF)
• AO 2026-19-Gen, vacating Amendment 2 (PDF)

Superseding authority: AOSC26-12 (PDF)