FL 18th Circuit (Brevard, Seminole): Eighteenth Judicial Circuit (Brevard/Seminole) Admin…
Chief Judge Melanie Chase · Eighteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida (Brevard and Seminole Counties)
Verified April 27, 2026
- Citation
- Eighteenth Judicial Circuit (Brevard/Seminole) Administrative Order AO 26-10: Disclosure of Use of Generative AI
- Order date
- February 13, 2026
Summary
Attorneys and self-represented litigants must disclose use of generative AI on the face of the filing.
What does the order require?
- Attorneys and self-represented litigants must disclose use of generative AI on the face of the filing.
- Required certification: 'Generative artificial intelligence was used in the preparation of this filing. The undersigned certifies that all factual assertions, legal authority, and citations have been independently reviewed and verified.'
- Independent verification of every citation and assertion is required regardless of AI use.
- Prohibited: fabricated legal authority, unverified AI citations, misrepresenting AI content as independently researched.
- Sanctions include striking the filing, denial of relief, monetary sanctions, contempt, and referral to The Florida Bar.
Practice areas: state civil, state criminal, state family, state probate
What the order requires
Chief Judge Melanie Chase of Florida’s Eighteenth Judicial Circuit (Brevard and Seminole counties) issued AO 26-10 on February 13, 2026. The order is circuit-wide and tracks the disclosure-and-certification framework used by the 11th, 15th, and 17th circuits, with one notable difference: it does not require identification of the specific AI tool used.
Filings in the 18th Circuit where generative AI was used need a disclosure block on the face of the filing and the prescribed certification language. Firms working across multiple Florida circuits should expect each circuit’s certification text to differ verbatim and template per circuit.
How the order works in practice
The certification text reaches further than a routine candor-to-the-tribunal acknowledgment. By requiring the filer to certify that “all factual assertions, legal authority, and citations have been independently reviewed and verified,” AO 26-10 imposes a per-filing audit obligation. A firm that already keeps a verification log for AI-assisted filings produces the artifact this certification swears to; a firm without that workflow is signing language that may outrun its evidence.
Sanctions are layered: striking the filing, denial of relief, monetary sanctions, contempt, and referral to The Florida Bar. The Bar-referral path is the consequence partners should flag, because a disciplinary file can surface at LPL renewal regardless of how the referral itself resolves. Brevard- and Seminole-county practice should treat AO 26-10 as a procedural rule with discipline-side consequences, not a soft disclosure norm.
The order reaches state civil, criminal, family, and probate filings in the circuit, broader than orders limited to a single docket type. Family-law and emergency-motion practitioners working under time pressure are particularly exposed; the disclosure-and-certification language belongs in the filing template, not drafted per matter.
Primary source
AO 26-10: https://flcourts18.org/document/26-10/