Florida (statewide): In re Amendments to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Ad…

What the rule requires

Effective June 15, 2026 at 12:01 a.m., every signer of a document filed in a Florida court makes a fourth representation alongside the three that already existed under rule 2.515(d)(2): that “the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited.” The amendment adds an express sanctions provision, so a court may act on a filing inconsistent with that representation after giving the signer notice and an opportunity to be heard.

The rule is framed around citation accuracy rather than technology. Its operative text never uses the words “artificial intelligence,” and it imposes no duty to disclose AI use. A filer who verifies every authority satisfies it regardless of what tools produced the draft; a filer who does not, fails it regardless of whether AI was involved.

Why it matters more than a disclosure rule would

The Court adopted the amendment on its own motion, explaining in the accompanying commentary that it did so “principally 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.”

Companion administrative order AOSC26-12, issued the same day, removes the circuits’ authority to keep or reissue those orders. Florida courts “may not impose such requirements,” it states, “whether through local administrative orders, court policies, judicial practices and procedures, or other means.” Rather, “courts should rely on amended rule 2.515(d)(2).”

For a firm, the practical effect runs in two directions at once. The compliance burden narrows, because there is no longer a per-circuit disclosure format to track, no tool-identification requirement, and no negative certification to file when AI was not used. The exposure surface widens, because the representation attaches to every filing in all 20 circuits rather than to filings in the five circuits that had adopted circuit-wide orders (the 11th, 15th, 17th, 18th, and 19th) and the one section-level standing order in the 6th, and it is breached by an inaccurate citation whether or not any AI tool was involved.

The Court noted that including an express sanctions provision was not meant “to change or comment on (by negative implication or otherwise) courts’ existing authority to impose sanctions for noncompliance with these rules generally.”

What this superseded

Six Florida state-court AI orders tracked here were displaced by the amendment. The 15th, 17th, 18th, and 19th Circuits each issued an order formally rescinding or vacating theirs (the 17th’s AO 2026-19-Gen vacated AO 2026-03-Gen (Amendment 2) effective June 15, 2026, though the circuit posted it only in September), and the 11th Circuit’s AO 26-18 rescinded AO 26-15, the successor to AO 26-04 (that lineage is inferred; the entry records the evidence), in every case citing AOSC26-12 or SC2026-0673. Judge Burgess’s Section 22 standing order in the 6th Circuit has no rescinding instrument and is superseded in effect, since AOSC26-12’s “or other means” language reaches judge-specific standing orders.

A seventh tracked Florida order, the 17th Circuit’s AO 2024-26-Civ Amendment 2, was not displaced by this rule: the circuit had already vacated it on July 24, 2025 through AO 2025-24-Civ, eleven months before the statewide amendment.

One 11th Circuit order survives on different ground: AO 26-03, prohibiting court personnel from using non-approved generative AI platforms, governs court staff rather than filers, so AOSC26-12 does not reach it.

Federal courts sitting in Florida are unaffected. AOSC26-12 binds Florida state courts only, so the M.D. Fla. case-management order on generative AI continues to apply on its own terms.

Quotable language

“the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited”

“The Court may, on its own motion or the motion of a party, impose sanctions for any filing inconsistent with this representation after providing the signer notice and an opportunity to be heard. Such sanctions may include reprimand, contempt, striking of the document, dismissal of proceedings, costs, attorneys’ fees, or other sanctions.”

“courts may not impose such requirements – whether through local administrative orders, court policies, judicial practices and procedures, or other means”

Primary source

• Opinion, No. SC2026-0673 (Fla. May 28, 2026)
• AOSC26-12, In re Representations by Signers of Filings (Fla. May 28, 2026)