ATTORNEY AND CLIENT: Enough Is Enough: Florida Supreme Court Amends Rules to Combat AI Misuse
Jason Holder—Senior Attorney
Much like their sister jurisdictions, Florida’s courts have seen an alarming increase in the citation of nonexistent caselaw stemming from the use of generative artificial intelligence by both attorneys and pro se litigants. See, e.g., Goya v. Hayashida, 418 So. 3d 652, 655 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) (Party’s brief cites cases “for the proposition that a party claiming inherited property must provide documents of transfer or other formal proof of inheritance. These cases do not exist, and no cases stand for that proposition or various other contentions in her brief.”); Russell v. Mells, 426 So. 3d 913, 921 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025) (holding that attorney “fundamentally abdicated” duty to the court and client by submitting a filing without verifying that the three cases cited said what was claimed and referring the matter to the Florida Bar “to proceed as it deems appropriate”); Hessert v. Hessert, No. 6D2026-0121, 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 2188, at *1-2 (6th DCA Mar. 20, 2026) (“[T]he petition filed by Petitioner cites to thirteen cases. Only four of the cited cases both exist and are cited for legal propositions that the cited cases actually represent. Five of the cited cases do not exist. Four of the cited cases are cited for legal propositions that the cited cases do not actually represent.”); Young v. AP, No. 25-CA-352, 2025 Fla. Cir. LEXIS 2476, at *30-32 (Aug. 29, 2025) (hallucinated cases found in motion for leave to amend); Rodriguez v. Baylis, No. 2025-CA-004973-O, 2025 Fla. Cir. LEXIS 2738, at *3-4 (Sept. 10, 2025) (pro se plaintiff appeared to have included artificial intelligence research and an AI platform hallucinated case that did not exist, but concluding that party “made an honest and genuine mistake as a pro se or self-represented litigant without the resources of a licensed attorney lacking any malice or bad faith”). As explained by one judge, “[c]hatbots are going to get better, and that's going to make these problems worse. The question now must be how to address them on the front end.” Gouveia v. Meridian Fin. Invs., LLC, No. 4D2025-0843, 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 2306, at *8, 15 Fla. L. Weekly D 600 (4th DCA Mar. 25, 2026) (Lott, J., concurring).
The Florida Supreme Court has answered this question by amending Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515 (Signature and Representations to Court). The amendment will “require the signer of a document filed with Florida's courts to represent that ‘the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited,’” In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.515, No. SC2026-0673, 2026 Fla. LEXIS 834, at *1 (May 28, 2026), and “expressly authorizes courts to impose appropriate sanctions for ‘any filing inconsistent with’ the representation a signer makes under rule 2.515(d)(2).” Id. The new requirement applies to filings prepared by attorneys as well as unrepresented parties, id. at *1-2, and will be enforced through the imposition of sanctions for offending filings after the certifying attorney/party is provided notice and an opportunity to be heard. Id. at *2. Possible sanctions include “reprimand, contempt, striking of the document, dismissal of proceedings, costs, attorneys' fees, or other sanctions.” Id.
The rule amendment does not appear to be directed at preventing parties from ever utilizing AI research/drafting, as the court acknowledges that such tools can be helpful. Id. at *1. Nevertheless, when improperly wielded, the technology can “generate content that appears plausible but is in fact inaccurate, including fabricated or ‘hallucinated’ authorities.” Id. The rule amendment is therefore designed to provide a uniform, statewide approach to replace “varied circuit court administrative orders imposing disclosure and certification requirements about the use of artificial intelligence in filings.” Id. at *2 (quoting commentary to 2026 amendment). In doing so, however, the court did not alter any existing authority to impose sanctions for noncompliance with the rules, or comment on any corrective actions taken by courts thus far. Id.; see, e.g., Goya, 418 So. 3d at 656 (“We have the authority to sanction Wife under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410(a) for failure to comply with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.210(c). However, we decline to do so.”) (internal citation omitted).
While the amendments to Rule 2.515 went into effect June 15, 2026, interested persons have 75 days from the date of the opinion in which to file comments with the court because the amendments were not previously published for commentary. 2026 Fla. LEXIS 834, at *3; see also id. at *3 n.2 (detailing how to submit commentary and noting that comments must be filed by August 11, 2026).
