Fla. Cir. (17th JC, Broward Cnty.): 17th Judicial Circuit (Florida) Administrative Order…
Adopted by Chief Judge Jack Tuter (signed 2025-04-08; exhibits filed 2025-04-15) · 17th Judicial Circuit of Florida (Broward County)
Verified May 8, 2026
- Citation
- 17th Judicial Circuit (Florida) Administrative Order 2024-26-Civ Amendment 2 (AI Disclosure and Verification Provision)
- Order date
- April 8, 2025
Summary
If any attorney or pro se party submits a filing or submission containing AI-generated content, the attorney or pro se party must disclose the use of artificial intelligence on the face of the document.
What does the order require?
- If any attorney or pro se party submits a filing or submission containing AI-generated content, the attorney or pro se party must disclose the use of artificial intelligence on the face of the document.
- The submission must include a certification that the attorney or pro se party has personally reviewed and verified the content's accuracy.
- Failure to include the certification or comply with the verification requirement is grounds for sanctions, as permitted by law.
- The order does not enumerate AI-specific sanctions; remedies available depend on the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and the inherent powers the cited rule structure makes available.
- Cross-references Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 (Jan. 19, 2024) as supplemental ethics guidance.
Practice areas: state civil
What the rule requires
The 17th Judicial Circuit’s AO 2024-26-Civ Amendment 2 imposes a disclosure-and-verification regime on any attorney or pro se party who submits a filing containing AI-generated content. The disclosure goes “on the face of the document,” and the certification confirms personal review and verification of the content’s accuracy. The rule’s scope is “AI-generated content” without a “generative” qualifier, sweeping any AI-assisted drafting.
The Order is among the broadest county-level AI rules in Florida: it applies to all civil filings before the 17th Judicial Circuit (Broward County). The AI provision itself states that noncompliance is “grounds for sanctions, as permitted by law” without enumerating AI-specific remedies; available consequences depend on the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and the court’s inherent powers. The cross-reference to Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 anchors the rule in the state-bar ethics framework, providing an additional path to enforcement through bar discipline.
R&G data corrections
R&G’s tracker dates this entry 2024-12-05. That date misrepresents the document’s history. The original AO 2024-26-Civ was issued 2024-12-30 as a “Civil Case Management Plan” with no AI provisions. The AI rule was introduced via Amendment 2, signed April 8, 2025 by Chief Judge Jack Tuter (with exhibits filed April 15, 2025). The 2025-04-08 signing date here reflects the operative date the AI rule took effect.
The 17th Judicial Circuit subsequently issued AO 2026-03-Gen (signed January 26, 2026 by Chief Judge Carol-Lisa Phillips), which expands the AI disclosure rule beyond civil cases. AO 2026-03-Gen is a separate, broader artifact not covered by this entry.
Quotable language
“If any attorney or pro se party submits to the court any filing or submission containing AI-generated content, that attorney or pro se party must disclose the use of artificial intelligence on the face of the document and also must include a certification that the attorney or pro se party has personally reviewed and verified the content’s accuracy.”
“Failure to include this certification or comply with this verification requirement will be grounds for sanctions, as permitted by law.”