Loading…
Only Rule 2.515(d)(2) binds you statewide. Five circuits rescinded their AI orders outright — but the SEVENTH CIRCUIT's G-2026-045-SC has never been rescinded and is still posted with sanctions language. It is preempted and unenforceable, yet it remains the circuit's most recent general administrative order. Dozens of judge pages statewide also still publish AI mandates.
WHAT ACTUALLY BINDS YOU TODAY: only Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.515(d)(2) (SC2026-0673, eff. June 15, 2026, 12:01 a.m.). By signing a filing you represent that the legal authorities identified in it exist and are accurately cited; a court may impose sanctions after notice and an opportunity to be heard. AOSC26-12 bars circuits and judges from adding their own AI disclosure or certification requirements "whether through local administrative orders, court policies, judicial practices and procedures, or other means." No separate AI disclosure statement, certification block, or tool-identification is required anywhere in Florida. CORRECTION (2026-07-22): BenchPath previously reported that every circuit-wide AI mandate in Florida had been rescinded. That was wrong. A Seventh Judicial Circuit pass found G-2026-045-SC — "Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) by Filers of Court Documents," signed February 12, 2026 by Chief Judge Leah R. Case for Flagler, Putnam, St. Johns and Volusia Counties — still live at https://circuit7.org/orders/g-2026-045-sc/ (fetched and hashed 2026-07-22, sha256 91da4124…). It requires disclosure on the face of the document plus a scripted certification, and authorizes sanctions including striking the filing, denial of the requested relief, and monetary penalties. The court's own site search for "artificial intelligence" returns only this order, and it is the highest-numbered 2026 general order in the circuit's index — nothing supersedes it. AOSC26-12 and Rule 2.515(d)(2) preempt it as a matter of law, so it is unenforceable and no filer needs to comply with its certification; but unlike the five circuits below, the Seventh has never rescinded it. Treat it as PREEMPTED-BUT-UNRESCINDED, and expect that some judges in those four counties may not yet know it is dead. FIVE CIRCUIT-WIDE MANDATES WERE AFFIRMATIVELY RESCINDED (all verified against signed orders in BenchPath custody): 11th — AO 26-04 (Jan. 15, 2026) superseded by AO 26-15, chain rescinded by AO 1-26-18. 15th (Palm Beach) — AO 2.109-4/26 VACATED in its entirety by AO 2.109-5/26. 17th (Broward) — AO 2026-03-Gen (Amendment 2) VACATED in its entirety by AO 2026-19-Gen, signed June 12, 2026 by Chief Judge Carol-Lisa Phillips. 18th — AO 26-10 rescinded by AO 26-24. 5th — A-2026-13 superseded by A-2026-13-A, which expressly disclaims creating any disclosure, certification or verification requirement. WHAT THE AUDIT FOUND ON THE PAGES (July 22, 2026): of 53 sources re-fetched and hashed, about 45 still display AI sections. Examples verified verbatim that day — 11th Circuit, Judge Glick (FC-02): "It must state at the beginning or at the end of the motion that the party has used AI to draft or assist in drafting their motion." 13th Circuit (Hillsborough), Judge Polo: "the party MUST, in a clear and plain factual statement, disclose". 13th, Judge Felix: "said Document must, in a clear and plain statement: Disclose that AI has been used." 15th, Division FI: still reproduces the mandate of an order its own chief judge vacated. 17th: fourteen division procedure documents still carry AI sections. 9th (Orlando): division procedure PDFs still contain "Use of Artificial Intelligence in Papers" sections. 4th, Division CV-E: still lists an "Artificial Intelligence Certificate" exhibit. 20th: Judges Cunningham and McFee still publish "USE OF AI IN COURT FILINGS." TWO COMPLIANT EXEMPLARS worth copying — 13th Circuit, Judge Bantner: "Given the Florida Supreme Court's amendment of Rule 2.515 ... this Court['s] prior A.I. requirements are removed." 13th Circuit, Judge Costello: restates Rule 2.515(d)(2) and imposes nothing further. HOW TO USE THIS: a division page that still demands an AI certification does not revive a rescinded or vacated order — the statewide rule controls. But because judges retain broad authority over their courtrooms, the practical, low-cost course is to comply with Rule 2.515(d)(2) (verify every citation) and, if a specific division page still requests a disclosure line, include one rather than litigate the point. BenchPath flags each stale page rather than deleting the history. DEEPER SWEEP OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT (Orange/Osceola), July 22, 2026: a judge-by-judge re-fetch found SEVENTEEN judge-specific guideline PDFs still posting AI disclosure/certification mandates — the largest single concentration in Florida, and three more than BenchPath's earlier statewide pass had recorded. All seventeen were independently fetched, hashed and confirmed verbatim: Cherish Adams (Div 72), Martha C. Adams (79), Andrew A. Bain (78), Jeramy C. Beasley (80), Mark S. Blechman (1), Amanda S. Bova (85), Celia Thacker Dorn (61-G), Heather L. Higbee (2), Stefania C. Jancewicz (62-G), Craig A. McCarthy (30-C), Steven C. Miller (63), Juna M. Pulayya (80-H), Brian S. Sandor (48), Mark A. Skipper (43-C), Michael J. Snure (17), Greg A. Tynan (9) and Doug Walker (75). Only ONE of the seventeen — Judge Bain's — even cites Rule 2.515. The Ninth Circuit has no circuit-level AI administrative order, so there is nothing for it to rescind; the cleanup has to happen document by document. Several of these mandates carry sanctions language (striking of pleadings, dismissal, contempt) that Rule 2.515(d)(2) and AOSC26-12 no longer support.
It must state at the beginning or at the end of the motion that the party has used AI to draft or assist in drafting their motion.
Reviewer note: Corrected 2026-07-22: the earlier "every circuit-wide mandate is dead" claim omitted the Seventh Circuit, which BenchPath's statewide 53-source audit never covered (the circuit had zero rules and one source at the time). Do not restate that claim without re-checking circuit7.org.
The 17th Circuit's circuit-wide AI disclosure/certification mandate (Jan 2026, twice amended) was VACATED in its entirety effective June 15, 2026 by Chief Judge Phillips's AO 2026-19-Gen, expressly citing the statewide framework (AOSC26-12; Rule 2.515(d)(2), SC2026-0673). Several division procedure pages still cite the vacated order.
Every circuit-civil case reviewed within 120 days of commencement and assigned a track (complex, streamlined, or general); case management orders required; firm continuance policy; sanctions for missed deadlines. Rescinds AO 21-09.
Circuit-civil hearing-availability standards: motion calendars ~2 weeks from request; 15-30 min special sets within 45-60 days; longer special sets scale.