Florida’s highest court has moved to tackle the growing problem of fabricated legal citations appearing in court filings produced with the help of artificial intelligence tools.
The Florida Supreme Court amended its statewide court rules to require attorneys and self-represented litigants to certify that legal authorities cited in their filings are accurate and genuinely exist.
The amended rules were approved by the court on its own motion on 28 May in Case No. SC2026-0673, marking a significant intervention into how AI is used in legal proceedings.
The court also expressly authorised judges to impose sanctions for filings containing fabricated or inaccurately cited authorities, including citations generated by AI tools.
The court warned that such tools can produce what it described as convincing but nonexistent cases, quotations, or legal analysis, posing a serious risk to the integrity of court proceedings.
A key motivation behind the ruling was growing inconsistency across Florida’s court circuits, where individual courts had begun implementing their own AI disclosure requirements, creating a fragmented legal landscape.
The Florida Supreme Court determined that this had created a “patchwork” of requirements and chose to adopt a uniform, statewide approach to address the problem directly and consistently.
Effective 15 June 2026, an amendment to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2) requires every signer of a court filing to represent that “the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited.”
Courts are also now authorised to impose sanctions for any filing inconsistent with that representation, with potential consequences including reprimand, dismissal of proceedings, and attorney fees.
Importantly, the amendment does not prohibit the use of AI tools in legal work, nor does it require attorneys to disclose every instance in which AI assisted with drafting or research.
Instead, the court is reinforcing a professional obligation that predates artificial intelligence entirely, namely that lawyers must independently verify the accuracy of every legal authority they cite.
The ruling serves as a firm reminder that technological innovation does not alter a lawyer’s fundamental duties of competence, diligence, and candour to the tribunal before which they appear.
AI may assist in the drafting and research process, but it cannot replace the attorney’s obligation to ensure that every legal authority presented to a court is real, accurate, and properly cited.