Florida: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Florida firm: Florida Opinion 24-1 (Jan 2024), which the Florida Bar describes as the first state ethics opinion on AI, sets out detailed expectations for confidentiality, billing, supervision, and chatbot intake. It is paired with Florida Supreme Court amendments to the comments to four Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (SC2024-0032), effective October 28, 2024. Since June 15, 2026 the filing-side rule is statewide and uniform: amended Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2) requires every signer to represent that “the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited,” and authorizes sanctions for filings inconsistent with that representation. The rule never uses the word “AI” and imposes no disclosure duty.

What changed: the patchwork of circuit-level AI disclosure orders is gone. Companion order AOSC26-12 directs that Florida courts “may not impose” AI disclosure or certification requirements “whether through local administrative orders, court policies, judicial practices and procedures, or other means.” The Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, and 19th Circuit orders have been rescinded or vacated. A firm still running a court-specific AI disclosure workflow built for those orders is maintaining a process Florida courts can no longer require.

Start with: a written AI use policy, a citation-verification procedure that can satisfy the rule 2.515(d)(2) representation on every filing, 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). The Board of Governors voted unanimously on January 19, 2024 to approve it (Florida Bar News). Primary source PDF. Landing page.

Status: Formal advisory ethics opinion. The opinion states on its face: “Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.”

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.
• A lawyer should not instruct or encourage a client to rely solely on the “work product” of generative AI (e.g., a due diligence report) without the lawyer’s own personal review.
• A lawyer must review the work product of a generative AI and “must verify the accuracy and sufficiency of all research performed by generative AI.”
• A lawyer “must develop policies and practices to verify that the use of generative AI is consistent with the lawyer’s ethical obligations.”
• Before charging the actual cost of using generative AI, a lawyer must inform the client, preferably in writing.
• If a lawyer is unable to determine the actual cost associated with a particular client’s matter, the lawyer “may not ethically prorate the periodic charges of the generative AI and instead should account for those charges as overhead.” Reasonable time spent on case-specific research and drafting may be billed, but not time spent developing minimal competence in the tool.
• 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 should research “the program’s policies on data retention, data sharing, and self-learning.”
• 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

• “[I]t is recommended that a lawyer obtain the affected client’s informed consent prior to utilizing a third-party generative AI program” if doing so would involve disclosure of confidential information.

Rules cited

Rules 4-1.1 and Comment; 4-1.5(a), (e), (f)(2), and (h); 4-1.6 and Comment, 4-1.6(c)(1), and (e); 4-1.18 Comment; 4-3.1; 4-3.3; 4-4.1; 4-4.4(b); Subchapter 4-7, including 4-7.13(b)(3) and (b)(5); and 4-5.3(a).

Notable gaps

Op 24-1 recommends, rather than requires, informed consent before confidential information goes to a third-party AI tool, and asks only that notice of AI costs be given “preferably in writing.” 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: Court-adopted amendments to the official comments, effective October 28, 2024, “adding a warning about the necessity to take care in using generative artificial intelligence.” The comments explain the Rules; the Florida Bar describes them as explanatory rather than as independent obligations (Florida Bar News).

What changed:

• Rule 4-1.1 (Competence): competence includes “an understanding of the benefits and risks associated with the use of technology, including generative artificial intelligence.”
• Rule 4-1.6 (Confidentiality): “a lawyer should be aware that generative artificial intelligence may create risks to the lawyer’s duty of confidentiality.”
• Rule 4-5.1 (Supervisory Lawyers): supervising lawyers should “consider safeguards for the firm’s use of technologies such as generative artificial intelligence.”
• Rule 4-5.3 (Nonlawyer Assistance): “A lawyer should also consider safeguards when assistants use technologies such as generative artificial intelligence,” and outside services include “using generative artificial intelligence.”

Practice resources

The Florida Bar’s LegalFuel site publishes The Florida Bar Guide to Getting Started with AI (first posted January 7, 2025; updated June 5, 2026), developed by the Special Committee on AI Tools & Resources. It points lawyers to Opinion 24-1, urges verification of AI output, and suggests that firms “consider a user training program and written guidelines for proper AI usage.” The Bar also publishes a Technology Informational Packet, updated November 14, 2025, which collects the Bar’s technology-related ethics opinions through Opinion 25-1 (November 10, 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. In the Middle District, Judge Berger requires an AI certification on every filing in her cases, and Judge Moe enters a standing order case by case that does the same once it is on that case’s docket. The operative federal default is Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

The statewide filing rule: Rule 2.515(d)(2)

On May 28, 2026 the Florida Supreme Court amended Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2) on its own motion, effective June 15, 2026. In re Amendments to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515, No. SC2026-0673 (Fla. May 28, 2026) (opinion PDF; AOSC26-12). Each signer of a filing now represents that “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,” and those sanctions “may include reprimand, contempt, striking of the document, dismissal of proceedings, costs, attorneys’ fees, or other sanctions.”

Two features matter for a firm building process around this. The rule applies to attorneys and self-represented parties alike. And its operative text never mentions artificial intelligence: it is a citation-accuracy rule, not a disclosure rule. Nothing in it requires a filer to say whether AI was used.

The same day, the Court issued AOSC26-12, which removes the circuits’ authority to add their own AI requirements on top. 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).” The Court’s own commentary describes the amendment as creating “a statewide, uniform replacement for varied circuit court administrative orders imposing disclosure and certification requirements about the use of artificial intelligence in filings.”

Comments on the adopted rule were due August 11, 2026. Nine were filed, including one from the Appellate Court Rules Committee, and a July 21, 2026 request for oral argument remains pending. As of September 28, 2026 no order had issued since the May 28 opinion and the case remained open, so the rule text could still change. The opinion provides that filing a motion for rehearing does not alter the effective date; the docket shows no such motion (ACIS docket, SC2026-0673).

How has the Fourth District sanctioned fabricated citations?

Four 2026 decisions of the Fourth District Court of Appeal show how Florida appellate courts are treating fabricated or unsupported authority, whether or not AI is involved.

• Eclectic Synergy, LLC v. Seredin, No. 4D2026-0781 (Fla. 4th DCA May 27, 2026) (opinion). The court ordered counsel to show cause because the petition “appears AI-generated and raises frivolous arguments, misstates the law, and cites non-existent caselaw,” held that “whether counsel used AI makes no difference to the need for sanctions,” and closed: “Affirmed; counsel sanctioned with referral to The Florida Bar.”
• Innocent v. Meraki Installers, LLC, No. 4D2025-1151 (Fla. 4th DCA May 27, 2026) (opinion). The court referred the matter to the Bar over quotations in the initial brief “that do not appear to be found anywhere in the actual trial transcript or otherwise in the Record.” The opinion does not mention AI.
• Avery v. Beauzil, Nos. 4D2026-0406 and 4D2026-0921 (Fla. 4th DCA May 27, 2026) (opinion). After AI-generated pro se petitions and a show-cause response, the court directed the Clerk to reject the petitioner’s future filings “unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar.”
• JMOR Properties, LLC v. Artist Alley Townhomes, LLC, No. 4D2026-1787 (Fla. 4th DCA Aug. 12, 2026) (order). Citing Rule 2.515(d)(2), the court referred counsel to the Bar after he explained that he had filed an AI-drafted petition by mistake, holding that the explanation “does not excuse the failure to verify the accuracy of all citations in his filing.”

State courts (circuit-level AI orders, now superseded)

Florida has 20 judicial circuits. Between April 2025 and April 2026 several issued their own AI disclosure and certification orders, and this section tracked them because a firm filing in Miami-Dade, Broward, or Palm Beach genuinely could not file a conforming pleading without a court-specific workflow.

That is no longer the position. Every order below has been rescinded, vacated, or superseded, and AOSC26-12 forecloses the circuits from reissuing them. The entries are retained as a record of what applied before June 15, 2026, which still matters for filings made while they were in force and for any pending sanctions proceeding arising from that period. None of them states current filing practice.

The federal AI orders in Florida that this tracker covers are unaffected, and all three sit in the Middle District: Judge Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe’s standing order (Orlando, entered case by case since May 2026), which requires one of two verbatim certifications under penalty of perjury on every filing stating whether AI was used; Judge Wendy W. Berger’s standing order (Jacksonville, April 2, 2026), which requires a certification at the end of every filing that no generative AI was used or that AI-drafted language was reviewed and all legal citations are real and accurate; and the Schlesinger case-management order in Soehlig v. Experian, verified only in that case and not as a chambers-wide rule. AOSC26-12 binds Florida state courts only and has no effect on the federal districts.

11th Judicial Circuit (Miami-Dade County) Administrative Order 26-04 (no longer in force)

Issued by Chief Judge Ariana Fajardo Orshan on 2026-01-15. No longer in force as of June 15, 2026. The instrument that ended it, AO 26-18 (signed June 11, 2026; effective June 15, 2026; citing SC2026-0673), rescinds AO 26-15 by number and carries a subject line that incorporates AO 26-04’s subject; AO 26-15’s own text could not be retrieved, so the chain from AO 26-04 to AO 26-15 to AO 26-18 is inferred from that caption and from the 17th Circuit’s record that its May 2026 amendment was coordinated with AO 26-15, not read from a document that names AO 26-04. The AO 26-04 entry sets out the sourcing. While in force it required the 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 for accuracy and accepts full responsibility for the contents of this filing.” Sanctions included striking the filing, denial of relief, monetary sanctions, contempt, and Florida Bar referral.

The circuit’s separate AO 26-03, prohibiting court personnel from using non-approved generative AI platforms, remains active. It governs court staff rather than filers, so AOSC26-12 does not reach it.

17th Judicial Circuit (Broward County) Administrative Order 2026-03-Gen (amended, then vacated)

Issued by Chief Judge Carol-Lisa Phillips on 2026-01-26 and amended twice. Amendment 2, signed May 19, 2026, narrowed the order considerably: it carved out AI legal research platforms used for routine research, retrieving authorities, or cite-checking, along with grammar and clarity edits, and it dropped the requirement to identify the specific AI tool that had been this order’s distinguishing feature.

On June 12, 2026, Chief Judge Phillips signed AO 2026-19-Gen, citing AOSC26-12 and SC2026-0673, which ordered that “effective June 15, 2026 at 12:01 a.m., Administrative Order 2026-03-Gen (Amendment 2) is VACATED in its entirety.” The vacating order appeared on the circuit’s general-orders index only in September 2026. Firms filing in Broward work from rule 2.515(d)(2). See the tracker entry.

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

Issued by Chief Judge Glenn D. Kelley on 2026-04-10 and vacated in its entirety effective June 15, 2026 by AO 2.109-5/26, signed May 29, 2026. That order states plainly: “Local Administrative Orders relating to AI disclosure are now preempted.” Note that the circuit reuses the same 2.109.pdf path for each revision, so the live URL now serves the vacating order rather than the AI order described here; the text of the AI order survives in an Internet Archive capture of 2026-05-20, taken while it was in force, against which the requirements below can be checked. While in force it required the following.

Disclosure of generative AI use was mandatory; the filing had to identify the specific tool used. Uses that had to be disclosed included legal research using generative AI. 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, litigants had to 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 (rescinded)

Signed and effective December 17, 2025, and rescinded effective June 15, 2026 by AO 2026-06, signed June 16, 2026 by Chief Judge Charles A. Schwab. While in force, attorneys and pro se parties had to certify they 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.

The order text of AO 2026-06 controls whatever label the circuit’s index applies.

6th Judicial Circuit (Pinellas/Pasco), reported Family Section 22 standing order

Judge Burgess’s Family Section 22 was reported in early 2026 to have adopted an AI disclosure standing order. No copy can currently be retrieved from the court’s site, and the practice-preferences page that had pointed to it now serves June 10, 2026 practice preferences with no AI content, so its terms are not described here. Any such order would in any event be superseded as of 2026-06-15 by amended rule 2.515(d)(2) and AOSC26-12, which bars Florida courts from imposing AI disclosure or certification requirements.

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 22, 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.

Since June 15, 2026 the filing-side exposure runs through rule 2.515(d)(2) rather than through circuit disclosure orders. The representation that cited authorities “exist and are accurately cited” attaches to every filing statewide, and the rule carries its own express sanctions provision. That is a broader exposure surface than the old circuit orders, not a narrower one: it reaches all 20 circuits rather than the five (plus one section-level standing order) that had adopted their own, and it is breached by filing an inaccurate citation regardless of whether AI was involved or disclosed. Filings made while the circuit orders were in force are still evaluated against those orders.

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. FLMIC also published a June 8, 2026 practice alert on the rule 2.515(d)(2) amendment, which reads the rule as reinforcing that “lawyers are responsible for the accuracy of the documents they file” and recommends verifying every cited authority against original sources before filing. Opinion 24-1 and SC2024-0032 establish the standard of care; produce documentation that maps to both.

What a carrier or broker is likely to want to see has shifted with the rule. The court-specific disclosure workflows that used to be the answer for Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach filings no longer correspond to anything a Florida court can require. A documented citation-verification procedure, one the firm can show is applied to every filing, is what now maps to the operative rule. 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. Supports Opinion 24-1’s direction that lawyers “must develop policies and practices” to verify AI use and the Rule 4-5.1 comment’s call to “consider safeguards.”
2. (Owner: litigation lead) A citation-verification procedure that satisfies rule 2.515(d)(2). Every signer now represents statewide that “the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited,” so the procedure needs to apply to all filings in all 20 circuits, and the firm needs to be able to show it was followed. This replaces the court-specific AI disclosure workflows this checklist previously called for: AOSC26-12 bars Florida courts from imposing disclosure or certification requirements, so those workflows no longer track any enforceable obligation.
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. Supports the supervisory duties in Rules 4-5.1 and 4-5.3.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

1. (Owner: managing partner + billing partner) Client engagement letter provisions. Disclose potential AI use and basic safeguards; inform the client, preferably in writing, before charging actual AI costs (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, Florida Supreme Court rule activity (including the post-comment disposition of SC2026-0673), and updated vendor terms. Opinion 24-1 notes that “generative AI is still in its infancy” and that its list of concerns is not exhaustive.

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