Loading…
8 verbatim mandatory provisions from 26-10.
Eighteenth Judicial Circuit. Check the order's own effective and rescission dates before relying on it. Procedural information only; not legal advice.
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. • WHEREAS, information generated by AI must have appropriate human oversight, including verification of factual claims and citation checks; • WHEREAS, self-represented litigants must adhere to the same procedural rules and applicable statutes as attorneys, Gutierrez v. • WHEREAS, all filings submitted to the Court must comply with the duty of candor to the tribunal, and the responsibility for accuracy rests solely with the filing party, regardless of the technology used; and WHEREAS, transparency regarding the use of AI promotes accountability, fairness, and public confidence in the judicial process. • Mandatory Disclosure of AI Use Any attorney or self-represented litigant who uses any generative artificial intelligence tool in the preparation of a pleading, motion, memorandum, response, proposed order, or other court record, must disclose such use on the face of the filing. • The filing shall include a statement substantially in the following form: “Generative artificial intelligence was used in the preparation of this filing. • All AI-generated content shall be deemed the work product of the filing party. • Prohibited Conduct The following conduct is prohibited: submission of fictitious, fabricated, or hallucinated legal authority, statutes, quotations, or facts; reliance on AI-generated citations without independent verification; misrepresentation of AI-generated content as independently researched authority; or failure to disclose the use of AI as required by this Administrative Order. • This Administrative Order shall take effect immediately and remain in effect until modified or rescinded.
WHEREAS, information generated by AI must have appropriate human oversight, including verification of factual claims and citation checks;
Reviewer note: Document sha256: 1cce877cafc62c8d56c0b837c533d54d8033d766cf5edac81656d3da52b96367 (196054 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. | Scope corrected 2026-08-03: the 18th numbers county-specific orders with -b (Brevard) and -s (Seminole); unsuffixed orders are circuit-wide. This rule was bulk-tagged to one county at harvest; the court's own numbering convention now controls.
Judge Costello's AI section simply restates amended Rule 2.515(d)(2) — the post-AOSC26-12 statewide standard — a compliance model, not a local mandate: signers certify cited authorities exist and are accurately cited, with the rule's own sanctions.
The strongest in-the-wild confirmation of the 2026 statewide AI rule: Judge Bantner's page expressly states his prior AI requirements are REMOVED because of the May 28, 2026 amendment of Rule 2.515 — signing a filing now itself certifies the authorities exist and are accurately cited.