Loading…
3 verbatim requirements extracted from AOSC26-12.pdf, across 1 topic.
Nineteenth Judicial Circuit (Indian River, Martin, Okeechobee, St. Lucie). Check the order's own effective and rescission dates before relying on it. Procedural information only; not legal advice.
Verbatim from the order, captured 2026-07-24; whitespace normalised only. No OCR was used anywhere in this chain. PROPOSED ORDERS • ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER Over the past several months, several judicial circuits have adopted administrative orders requiring filers or signers of court documents to disclose the use of artificial intelligence in the creation of such documents and to certify the accuracy of the information contained therein. These orders, though reasonable and motivated by valid concerns, have created a patchwork of differing disclosure and certification obligations for the parties and attorneys who participate in the court system throughout our State. The Court believes that a uniform, statewide approach to AI-related disclosure and certification would better balance the needs of the court system with the interests of the external users of that system. To that end, the Court has issued In re Amendments to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515, No. SC2026-0673 (Fla. May 28, 2026). The amendments expand the • - 2 - existing representation under rule 2.515(d)(2) “to require the signer of a filing to represent that the legal authorities identified in that filing ‘exist and are accurately cited.’ ”1 Further, the amendments provide that a court may impose sanctions for filings that are inconsistent with the representation required under rule 2.515(d)(2).2 The amendments to rule 2.515(d)(2) obviate the need for circuit-level disclosure or certification requirements about the use of artificial intelligence and the accuracy of information in court filings. Accordingly, courts may not impose such requirements – whether through local administrative orders, court policies, judicial practices and procedures, or other means. Rather, courts should rely on amended rule 2.515(d)(2), including the enforcement authority expressly set out in the rule. This order does not affect courts’ authority to educate court system users about the potential benefits and pitfalls surrounding the use of artificial intelligence or • - 3 - to warn such users about sanctions for making inaccurate filings. Nor does the order affect courts’ authority to govern court system employees’ use of artificial intelligence. This order shall take effect on June 15, 2026, at 12:01 a.m. (the effective date of the amendments to rule 2.515(d)(2)). DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on May 28, 2026.
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER Over the past several months, several judicial circuits have adopted administrative orders requiring filers or signers of court documents to disclose the use of artificial intelligence in the creation of such documents and to certify the accuracy of the information contained therein. These orders, though reasonable and motivated by valid concerns, have created a patchwork of differing disclosure and certification obligations for the parties and attorneys who participate in the court system throughout our State. The Court believes that a uniform, statewide approach to AI-related disclosure and certification would better balance the needs of the court system with the interests of the external users of that system. To that end, the Court has issued In re Amendments to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515, No. SC2026-0673 (Fla. May 28, 2026)
Reviewer note: Document sha256: ac0d95053424a07232993105f738cc966eca882552db4473f7a620a9f0374fef. One rule per order rather than per topic, so an order's requirements stay together. Published during the completeness pass.
Division AO requires proposed orders to be submitted in Word format through the 15th Circuit Online Services System. Orders submitted online do not need a date or signature line.
3 verbatim requirements published by Palm Beach Division M on proposed orders & online scheduling.
When counsel is asked to prepare an order after a hearing, it must be drafted and circulated to opposing counsel within three working days and submitted to the Court within seven days of the hearing.