Florida: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Florida firm: Florida Opinion 24-1 (Jan 2024) is the most prescriptive formal ethics opinion on attorney AI use issued by any state bar to date. It is paired with binding Florida Supreme Court rule comment amendments. Those amendments (SC2024-0032) became effective October 28, 2024. Mandatory AI disclosure orders are in effect in Miami-Dade (11th Circuit), Broward (17th Circuit), Palm Beach (15th Circuit), and the 19th Circuit, covering Florida’s largest legal markets. Firms practicing in those circuits cannot file conforming pleadings without a court-specific AI disclosure workflow.

Start with: a written AI use policy, a court-specific AI disclosure workflow if the firm files in any of the circuits below, and a vendor due-diligence record for each AI tool in use.

Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1

Citation: Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 (issued January 19, 2024). Approved unanimously by the Florida Bar Board of Governors. Primary source PDF. Landing page.

Status: Formal advisory ethics opinion. Treated as authoritative guidance in Florida disciplinary proceedings.

What it requires

• Lawyers may use generative AI only to the extent they can reasonably guarantee compliance with all ethical obligations. Those obligations include confidentiality, avoidance of frivolous claims, candor to the tribunal, truthfulness, avoidance of clearly excessive fees, and advertising restrictions.
• Clients must not be instructed or encouraged to rely solely on AI work product (e.g., a due diligence report) without the lawyer’s own personal review.
• Before charging the actual cost of using generative AI, a lawyer must inform the client, preferably in writing.
• AI subscription charges may not be prorated as a per-client cost; subscription costs are overhead. Time actually spent on case-specific AI research and drafting may be billed.
• Double-billing is prohibited: a lawyer may not charge as though time-intensive work was performed when AI reduced the effort.
• When using a third-party AI tool that could expose confidential information, a lawyer must research the program’s policies on data retention and data sharing. The lawyer must also confirm whether the tool is self-learning, meaning whether client inputs become training data.
• A lawyer using a chatbot for client intake must ensure prospective clients know they are communicating with AI, not a real lawyer, with clear and reasonably understandable disclaimers.

What it recommends

• Obtain affected client’s informed consent before using a third-party AI tool when use involves confidential information.
• Review AI work product the same way a lawyer reviews work from nonlawyer assistants.
• Maintain firm policies and practices to verify AI use is consistent with ethical obligations.

Rules cited

Rules 4-1.1 (Competence), 4-1.5 (Fees), 4-1.6 (Confidentiality), 4-1.18 (Duties to Prospective Client), 4-5.3 (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistance), 4-5.5 (Unauthorized Practice of Law), and 4-7.13 (Deceptive and Inherently Misleading Advertisements).

Notable gaps

Op 24-1 uses “preferably in writing” for client consent rather than mandating it. It draws no bright line between per-matter AI cost disclosure and overhead treatment. It does not address AI tools hosted outside the US or AI use in courtroom settings.

Florida Supreme Court SC2024-0032: rule comment amendments

Citation: SC2024-0032 (Florida Supreme Court). Approved 2024-08-29; effective 2024-10-28. Primary source PDF.

Status: Binding rule comment amendments. Effective October 28, 2024, they set the profession-wide standard of care for AI use in Florida.

What changed:

• Rule 4-1.1 (Competence): Firm policies and procedures should include safeguards for the firm’s use of technologies such as generative AI. A lawyer must understand what technologies are being used, their risks, and their limitations.
• Rule 4-1.6 (Confidentiality): A lawyer should be aware that generative AI may create risks to the confidentiality duty, including risks from self-learning models that may incorporate client data into future responses.
• Rule 4-5.1 (Supervisory Lawyers): Supervisory obligations explicitly extend to AI-assisted work within the firm.
• Rule 4-5.3 (Nonlawyer Assistance): AI tools are explicitly analogous to nonlawyer assistants, requiring the same supervision and verification.

Practice resources

On January 17, 2025, the Florida Bar Board Technology Committee published the LegalFuel Guide to Getting Started with AI. It analyzes ethical issues through the lens of Opinion 24-1 and SC2024-0032, with guidance on selecting compliant platforms, verifying output, and drafting internal AI policies. The Bar also publishes a Technology Informational Packet, updated November 14, 2025. The packet collects all Florida Bar ethics opinions related to technology use through late 2025.

What federal courts in Florida require for AI use in filings

At this time, no district-wide AI standing order is in effect in any of Florida’s three federal districts (N.D. Fla., M.D. Fla., S.D. Fla.). Individual judge orders may apply; firms should review the assigned judge’s standing orders at the opening of each federal matter. The operative federal default is Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

State courts (circuit-level AI orders)

Florida has 20 judicial circuits. The orders below are binding on attorneys filing in those circuits. No court-wide AI disclosure order surfaced in this entry’s research for the 13th Circuit (Hillsborough/Tampa), 9th Circuit (Orange/Osceola/Orlando), 4th Circuit (Duval/Clay/Nassau/Jacksonville), or 2nd Circuit (Leon/Tallahassee). Firms practicing in those circuits face the bar opinion (Op 24-1) plus the SC2024-0032 standard but no circuit-level disclosure mandate. Confirm against the assigned judge’s standing orders and current circuit administrative orders before filing; this list reflects what was visible in primary-source research as of the verification date below.

11th Judicial Circuit (Miami-Dade County) Administrative Order 26-04

Issued by Chief Judge Ariana Fajardo Orshan on 2026-01-15. Primary source HTML. Required certification language (substantial form): “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 for accuracy and accepts full responsibility for the contents of this filing.” Sanctions for non-compliance include striking the filing, denial of relief, monetary sanctions, contempt, and Florida Bar referral.

17th Judicial Circuit (Broward County) Administrative Order 2026-03-Gen

Issued by Chief Judge Carol-Lisa Phillips on 2026-01-26. Primary source PDF. When AI has been used, the document must identify the specific AI tool. The signer must independently verify the accuracy of every citation to law and the record, and the accuracy of all AI-drafted language (quotations, citations, paraphrased assertions, facts, legal analysis). Sanctions include contempt, striking of pleadings or dismissal, fines, attorney’s fees, and Bar referral.

15th Judicial Circuit (Palm Beach County) Administrative Order 2.109-4/26

Issued by Chief Judge Glenn D. Kelley on 2026-04-10. Primary source PDF. Disclosure of generative AI use is mandatory; the filing must identify the specific tool used. The order names specific generative AI tools subject to disclosure: Harvey AI, Lexis+AI, AI.Law, Co-Counsel by Thomson Reuters, Westlaw drafting assistant, ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, and Claude AI. It excludes “Traditional AI” (Westlaw Precision, LexisNexis, Justia, FindLaw, Cornell LII, Florida Law Weekly, spelling/grammar checks). Required certification language (substantial form), placed at the conclusion of the filing or immediately above the signature block: “Generative artificial intelligence (name of generative AI program used) 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 for accuracy and accepts full responsibility for the contents of this filing.” The order prohibits four practices: submission of fictitious, fabricated, or hallucinated authority; reliance on AI-generated citations without independent verification; misrepresentation of AI-generated content as independently researched authority; and failure to disclose. Before using AI for note-taking or recording during proceedings, attorneys must notify the presiding judge. AI notes and recordings are not an official record. Sanctions: striking the filing, denial of relief, monetary sanctions, contempt, and Bar referral.

19th Judicial Circuit (Martin, Indian River, Okeechobee, St. Lucie Counties) Administrative Order 2025-10

Effective December 2025. Primary source PDF. Attorneys and pro se parties must certify they have personally prepared or reviewed filings and disclose whether any portion was drafted, edited, or produced with AI assistance. Sanctions: striking, fines, contempt, attorney’s fees, mandatory CLE, Bar referral. See the tracker entry for AO 2025-10.

6th Judicial Circuit (Pinellas/Pasco), Judge Burgess Section 22 Standing Order

Issued 2026-01-19. Primary source PDF. Section-level only, not circuit-wide. Notable for requiring an affirmative negative certification: when no AI was used, the filing must still include a statement to that effect. More demanding than the other circuit orders.

What AI-related rules are pending in Florida?

No attorney-conduct AI legislation passed in Florida’s 2024 or 2025-2026 legislative sessions. CS/SB 482 (filed December 2025) was primarily a consumer-protection measure addressing chatbots, deepfakes, and AI companion chatbots for minors. It died in House messages on 2026-03-13 and did not impose obligations on attorneys.

How do malpractice carriers in Florida treat AI use?

Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company (FLMIC) is the Florida Bar’s affiliated LPL carrier. It published practice guidance on AI risk in October 2023, identifying AI-generated fictitious precedents, faulty legal information, and confidentiality breaches as specific malpractice risk areas. No publicly disclosed AI-specific underwriting exclusions appear in FLMIC materials reviewed.

Opinion 24-1’s requirements establish the standard of care. A malpractice claim arising from unreviewed AI work product, AI-hallucinated citations in a filing, or confidential data uploaded to a self-learning AI tool will be evaluated against those requirements. The circuit court orders create an additional malpractice exposure path: a stricken filing or sanctions referral arising from non-disclosure in Miami-Dade, Broward, or Palm Beach creates a clear chain to malpractice exposure.

What does my Florida malpractice carrier ask about AI at renewal?

FLMIC’s October 2023 risk advisory identifies the substantive AI exposures (fictitious citations, faulty information, confidentiality breaches) but does not publish specific renewal-application items. Opinion 24-1 and SC2024-0032 establish the standard of care; produce documentation that maps to both. Firms practicing in circuits with mandatory AI disclosure orders (Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, 19th Circuit, or Judge Burgess’s Pinellas/Pasco section) should also be ready to show a court-specific AI disclosure workflow. The circuit orders create an additional exposure path the carrier or broker will weigh. Confirm application items directly with FLMIC or your broker.

What documentation should a Florida firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy. Cover approved tools, what client information may or may not be input, AI cost classification (billable vs. overhead), review and verification procedures, and supervision protocols. Required by implication of Rules 4-1.1 and 4-5.1 comments (SC2024-0032) and Opinion 24-1.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Court-specific AI disclosure workflows. Required for filings in Miami-Dade (exact AO 26-04 certification language), Broward (must identify specific tool), Palm Beach (AO 2.109-4/26 certification), the 19th Circuit, and Judge Burgess’s Section 22 in Pinellas/Pasco (negative certification required even when AI not used).
3. (Owner: firm administrator) Staff training documentation showing attorneys and staff have reviewed Opinion 24-1, the SC2024-0032 amendments, and the firm’s AI policy. Required by Rules 4-5.1 and 4-5.3 Comments.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

1. (Owner: managing partner + billing partner) Client engagement letter provisions. Disclose potential AI use and basic safeguards; include written disclosure when charging per-matter AI costs (required by Opinion 24-1); add consent language when the firm uses AI transcription or recording.
2. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) Vendor due diligence records for each third-party AI tool receiving client data: data retention policy, self-learning status, third-party sharing terms, and data processing agreement, timestamped at date of review.

Months four to six (per-matter discipline)

These are recurring practices, not one-time projects: each new matter exercises them.

1. (Owner: managing partner) Periodic review schedule for updated Florida Bar guidance, new circuit court AI orders, and updated vendor terms. The Florida Bar has signaled this area is actively evolving.

We are building practitioner resources for firms working through this list. The monthly update covers new resources as they ship.