The Supreme Court of Florida Says the Signer of a Court Filing Represents That the Legal Authorities Identified Exist and Are Accurately Cited

On May 28, 2026, the Supreme Court of Florida amended, on its own motion, the part of its rules that says what the signer of a document filed with Florida's courts represents. Its opinion in No. SC2026-0673 requires the signer to represent that "the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited." The same day the court issued Administrative Order AOSC26-12, on representations by signers of filings. Parts of the two documents follow, not the whole.

What the Signer Represents, and the Dates

The rule is Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515, and the amended part is subdivision (d)(2), headed "Representation by Signer." As amended, it says that on filing, each signer represents four things: that the signer has read the document; that "to the best of the signer's knowledge, information, and belief," there are good grounds to support it; that it is not interposed for delay; and that the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited. The opinion adds the last of these.

In the rule's own list, the words "to the best of the signer's knowledge, information, and belief" stand in front of the good grounds. They do not stand in front of the authorities.

The amendment also expressly authorizes sanctions. 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." The rule lists what those sanctions may include: reprimand, contempt, striking of the document, dismissal of proceedings, costs, attorneys' fees, or other sanctions.

The opinion says the requirement "applies both to filings prepared by attorneys and to filings prepared by unrepresented parties." It made the amendments effective June 15, 2026, at 12:01 a.m. Because they were not published for comment beforehand, the opinion says, interested persons "shall have 75 days from the date of this opinion in which to file comments with the Court," and a footnote sets the deadline at August 11, 2026. The opinion also says, in capitals, that the filing of a motion for rehearing "SHALL NOT ALTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE AMENDMENTS."

Why the Court Made the Change

Generative AI tools are being used as drafting or research aids for court filings, it says, and "Though these tools can be helpful, they also can generate content that appears plausible but is in fact inaccurate," including fabricated authorities, which it also calls hallucinated ones. It amends the rule "Given the demonstrated risks of generative AI and to promote the accuracy and integrity of court filings."

The court commentary under the rule says the court adopted the amendments "principally to create a statewide, uniform replacement for varied circuit court administrative orders," orders that imposed disclosure and certification requirements about the use of artificial intelligence in filings. Those orders included sanctions provisions, it says, and the court included an express sanctions provision in the rule "to avoid uncertainty over courts' continuing authority to impose sanctions in this context, as provided for in the circuit court administrative orders that have been replaced." The opinion adds that the new provision is not intended "to change or comment on (by negative implication or otherwise) courts' existing authority to impose sanctions for noncompliance with these rules generally."

One Rule in Place of Local Orders

The administrative order describes the local orders. Over the past several months, it says, several judicial circuits have adopted administrative orders "requiring filers or signers of court documents to disclose the use of artificial intelligence in the creation of such documents and to certify the accuracy of the information contained therein." It calls those orders "reasonable and motivated by valid concerns," and says they "have created a patchwork of differing disclosure and certification obligations" for the parties and attorneys who participate in the court system throughout the state.

According to the order, the amendments "obviate the need for circuit-level disclosure or certification requirements about the use of artificial intelligence and the accuracy of information in court filings," and courts may not impose such requirements, "whether through local administrative orders, court policies, judicial practices and procedures, or other means." Courts "should rely on amended rule 2.515(d)(2), including the enforcement authority expressly set out in the rule."

The order also says what it leaves alone. It does not affect courts' authority to educate court system users about the potential benefits and pitfalls surrounding the use of artificial intelligence, or to warn such users about sanctions for making inaccurate filings. "Nor does the order affect courts' authority to govern court system employees' use of artificial intelligence."