AO 2026-12 Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings — Okaloosa County, FL · BenchPath

First Cir. — AO 2026-12 Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings

High confidence· verified September 9, 2026Proposed OrdersFirst Judicial Circuit, AO 2026-12 Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings — harvested live and sha256-hashed 2026-07-24

Summary

6 verbatim mandatory provisions from AO 2026-12 Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings.

Applies to

First Judicial Circuit. Check the order's own effective and rescission dates before relying on it. Procedural information only; not legal advice.

Requirement

• USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN COURT FILINGS WHEREAS, generative is becoming a common tool used in preparation of court filings and other documents for both attorneys and self-represented litigants; and WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of Florida has amended the Comments to rules 4-1.1, 4- 1.6, 4-5.1, and 4-5.3 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar to add a warning to members of the Bar regarding the critical need to employ AI cautiously;1 and WHEREAS, AI is known at times to generate inaccurate or entirely fabricated facts and/or legal authority, and human oversight is required to maintain the accuracy and reliability of documents filed with the Court; and WHEREAS, both attorneys and self-represented litigants are required to adhere to the same procedural rules and state and local statutes, and all filings must comply with the duty of candor to the court, which demands that filers critically analyze conclusions and recommendations, guard against plagiarism, and ensure that both cited legal authority and factual assertions are real, accurate, and not misleading, regardless of whether AI is used by the filer; • Any attorney or self-represented litigant who uses AI in the preparation of a pleading, motion, memorandum, response, proposed order, or other court document must disclose such use on the face of the filing. 3. • If AI is used in the preparation of any filing, the filing shall include a statement acknowledging the use of AI, accepting full responsibility for the contents of the filing, and certifying that all material within the filing has been independently reviewed and verified for accuracy. • Each attorney or self-represented litigant remains solely responsible for the content of documents submitted to the court, and any AI-generated content shall be deemed the product of the filing party. • Submission of fictitious, fabricated, or hallucinated legal authority, statutes, quotations, or facts; reliance on AI- generated citations without independent authority; or failure to disclose the use of AI as required by this order is prohibited. 5. • This Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until rescinded or modified.

Source of truth

USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN COURT FILINGS WHEREAS, generative is becoming a common tool used in preparation of court filings and other documents for both attorneys and self-represented litigants; and WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of Florida has amended the Comments to rules 4-1.1, 4- 1.6, 4-5.1, and 4-5.3 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar to add a warning to members of the Bar regarding the critical need to employ AI cautiously;1 and WHEREAS, AI is known at times to generate inaccurate or entirely fabricated facts and/or legal authority, and human oversight is required to maintain the accuracy and reliability of documents filed with the Court; and WHEREAS, both attorneys and self-represented litigants are required to adhere to the same procedural rules and state and local statutes, and all filings must comply with the duty of candor to the court, which demands that filers critic

Official source: 1st Circuit — official site
Source health: Healthy · checked October 24, 2026
Effective date: —
Last verified: September 9, 2026benchpath-reverify-2026-09-08 (custody hash match) | prior: benchpath-live-harvest-2026-07-24

Reviewer note: Document sha256: 459596b34dee00b2178a588de7304a21c33936f0c717fbfb780573249177455c (142616 bytes). BenchPath harvested this circuit itself because no research corpus existed for it. Extraction is conservative: mandatory-language sentences only, so this rule is a faithful subset of the order, never a summary of it. Verbatim from the order's own text layer, harvested 2026-07-24; whitespace normalised only. No OCR was used. Only sentences containing mandatory language (shall, must, may not, no later than, within N) are reproduced — the full document is in custody and is the controlling text. [moved from the text 2026-09-14]