Loading…
4 verbatim requirements extracted from Opinion_SC2026-0673.pdf, across 2 topics.
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.
PROPOSED ORDERS • response to prompts—are being used as drafting or research aids for court filings. Though these tools can be helpful, they also can generate content that appears plausible but is in fact inaccurate, including fabricated or “hallucinated” authorities. Given the demonstrated risks of generative AI and to promote the accuracy and integrity of court filings, we amend 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.” This requirement applies both to filings prepared by attorneys and to filings prepared by unrepresented parties. We also amend rule 2.515(d)(2) to provide that the court may “impose sanctions for any filing inconsistent with this representation after providing the signer notice and an opportunity to be heard.” And we amend rule 2.515(d)(2) to specify that “[s]uch sanctions may include reprimand, contempt, striking of the document, dismissal of proceedings, costs, attorneys’ fees, or other sanctions.” The accompanying court commentary explains that the Court adopted these amendments “principally to create a statewide, uniform replacement for varied circuit court administrative orders imposing disclosure and certification requirements about the use of artificial intelligence in • 2026 Amendment. The Court adopted the 2026 amendments to subdivision (d)(2) principally to create a statewide, uniform replacement for varied circuit court administrative orders imposing disclosure and certification requirements about the use of artificial • intelligence in filings. Those circuit court administrative orders included sanctions provisions. The Court included an express sanctions provision in amended subdivision (d)(2) to avoid uncertainty over courts’ continuing authority to impose sanctions in this context, as provided for in the circuit court administrative orders that have been replaced. By including an express sanctions provision in amended subdivision (d)(2), the Court does not intend to change or comment on (by negative implication or otherwise) courts’ existing authority to impose sanctions for noncompliance with these rules generally. HEARING TIME & ARGUMENT LIMITS • 2. All comments must be filed with the Court on or before August 11, 2026, as well as a separate request for oral argument if the person filing the comment wishes to participate in oral argument, which may be scheduled in this case. If filed by an attorney in good standing with The Florida Bar, the comment must be electronically filed via the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal (Portal). If filed by a nonlawyer or a lawyer not licensed to practice in Florida, the comment may be, but is not required to be, filed via the Portal. Any person unable to submit a comment electronically must mail or hand-deliver the originally signed comment to the Florida Supreme Court, Office of the Clerk, 500 South Duval Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399; no additional copies are required or will be accepted.
- 2 - response to prompts—are being used as drafting or research aids for court filings. Though these tools can be helpful, they also can generate content that appears plausible but is in fact inaccurate, including fabricated or “hallucinated” authorities. Given the demonstrated risks of generative AI and to promote the accuracy and integrity of court filings, we amend 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.” This requirement applies both to filings prepared by attorneys and to filings prepared by unrepresented parties. We also amend rule 2.515(d)(2) to provide that the court may “impose sanctions for any filing inconsistent with this representation after providing the signer notice and an opportunity to be heard.” And we amend rule 2.515(d)(2) to specify that “[s]uch sanctions m
Reviewer note: Document sha256: 4548dc0d089c65934f01270e230a9e3643edad528174514512db4fb834515df5. One rule per order rather than per topic, so an order's requirements stay together. Published during the completeness pass. | Title normalised 2026-07-26 for readability; the court's own asset name was "19th Cir. — Opinion_SC2026-0673.pdf: published requirements". Only the display title changed — the requirement text, source URL and hash are untouched. Text layer cleaned 2026-09-08 (Phase 3f): page headers/footers, ligatures and letter-spaced headings normalised; wording untouched. Verbatim from the order, captured 2026-07-24; whitespace normalised only. No OCR was used anywhere in this chain. [moved from the text 2026-09-14]
6 verbatim requirements on proposed orders in NINA W. DI PIETRO's division.
3 verbatim requirements on proposed orders in JOHN HURLEY's division.