M.D. Fla.: Standing Order Requiring Disclosure of the Use of Artificial Intelligence (Jud…

What the order requires

In each case where it is entered, Judge Moe’s order makes AI disclosure a condition of every filing, whether or not AI was used. The filer must include one of two certifications, word for word:

1. AI not used. The filer certifies “under penalty of perjury” that “artificial intelligence was not utilized in the preparation of this filing in any way,” and acknowledges “an affirmative obligation to read each case cited in this filing.”
2. AI used. The filer states how AI was used (“[insert description]”) and certifies “under penalty of perjury” that “before filing, I personally reviewed Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and I personally read every case.”

Both certifications warn that citing a case that “does not exist or does not reasonably stand for the cited proposition” may be treated as a Rule 11 violation, that for counsel it may be treated as a violation of the oath of candor and “a basis on which my admission to practice in the Middle District of Florida could be revoked or suspended,” and that a false certification could lead to referral “for criminal prosecution.”

A filing without one of the two certifications “may be stricken,” and where the filing is a motion, complaint, or petition “the relief requested may be denied without prejudice.”

Three features that set it apart

A certification on every filing, not only AI-assisted ones. Most chambers rules ask for a statement only when AI was used. Here a filing that used no AI still needs the “not used” certification.

Verbatim or nothing. The order states that “only strict compliance will be recognized because it is an inefficient use of the Court’s finite resources to analyze what latent significance there may be in ‘substantially compliant’ certifications.” A firm’s own paraphrase of the language does not satisfy it.

A defined carve-out for research tools. “The traditional use of Westlaw or LexisNexis for legal research” and search engines “like Google, Brave, DuckDuckGo, Yahoo, or Bing” are not AI use that must be disclosed. Anything else is, and “every doubt” about whether a tool counts “should be resolved in favor of disclosure.”

Who is responsible

The certification binds the signer: “it will be no defense that the document was drafted by someone other than the person who signed the filing.” The order applies equally to counsel and to self-represented parties.

Scope note

The posted copy was entered as Doc. 193 in Case No. 6:24-cv-01987-AGM-RMN on May 27, 2026, and the court’s site lists it among Judge Moe’s standing orders. Judge Moe enters the order case by case: the same-titled order appears on the dockets of many of her cases from June 2026 on, for example Tarver v. Republic Finance, LLC (Doc. 11), Wang v. Lu (Doc. 15), and Tarver v. Bank of America N.A. (Doc. 11). The requirement therefore attaches in a given matter once the order is entered there. Its Section VIII safe harbor (ten days to withdraw or certify earlier filings) runs from entry on each docket.

Related orders in the district

Judge Wendy W. Berger’s standing order (Jacksonville Division, April 2, 2026) also requires an AI certification at the end of every filing, in a shorter form.

Primary source

Standing Order Requiring Disclosure of the Use of Artificial Intelligence (PDF)

Court page: Standing Order of Judge Moe Requiring Disclosure of The Use of Artificial Intelligence