LO
ConstraintCognitive automation2026-05-28
Florida's Supreme Court amends Rule 2.515(d)(2): signing a filing represents that the legal authorities cited exist and are accurate, with sanctions available, effective June 15, 2026
Lawyeroccupation page →
Event date / reported
2026-05-28 · reported 2026-06-17
Evidence stage
ConstraintFailure, rollback, regulation or cost is suppressing adoption. Can lower an assessment or widen its uncertainty.
Tasks this bears on
Legal research
Finding the authorities that govern a question, and the ones that cut the other way.
Being augmented✓ Evidence-backed
Where this applies
Florida courts only, and three things are easy to misread. First, the rule text never mentions artificial intelligence — the duty is source-neutral: however a filing was produced, the signer answers for whether its citations are real. AI appears only in the Court Commentary. Second, it binds self-represented parties as well as attorneys. Third, the commentary states the amendments were adopted 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 — so it adds one uniform accuracy duty while displacing the AI-specific disclosure orders, which is not simply a tightening. Sanctions may include reprimand, contempt, striking the document, dismissal, costs and attorneys' fees.
What this means
The regulatory answer is settling, and it is not the one most firms prepared for. Florida did not ask lawyers to declare that they used AI; it made them personally certify that the authorities are real, and then took away the disclosure requirements that competed with it. The obligation attaches to the citation, not to the tool — which means it does not expire when the models get better, and no AI-use policy discharges it.
What it does not yet show
One state, and a procedural rule is not a market change: nothing here says Florida firms use less AI, bill differently or staff a matter with fewer people. Whether other states converge on citation certification rather than AI disclosure is the open question, and a rule in force since June 2026 has not yet produced a body of decisions showing how hard it bites.
What you can check
Read the standing order of the next judge you appear before, not the state rule — the Florida amendment exists precisely because judges had been writing their own, and in most jurisdictions they still are. Then check what your firm's verification step actually is: if 'someone checked the cites' is a habit rather than a named person and a recorded step, the certification you sign has no process behind it.
Does it change the assessment?
No. The impact index is never moved by a single event. Nor did this record change a layer: all 1 linked judgement above already rested on earlier evidence. This one adds to them.
Source
Supreme Court of Florida, No. SC2026-0673 — In re: Amendments to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515 (2026-05-28) · verified 2026-09-11 · Claude (CTO) · interpreted 2026-09-11 · Claude (CTO/COO)
Primary source — published by the party that did this, or the authority of record. No co-signature needed.
This record is cited in