ConstraintCognitive automation2026-05-28
The Supreme Court of Florida amended Rule 2.515 so that signing any filing certifies that every legal authority cited exists and is accurately cited, with sanctions available, effective 15 June 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
One US state, and the rule is written about citations rather than about AI: the Court simultaneously preempted the circuit-level administrative orders that had required lawyers to disclose AI use. Available sanctions are reprimand, contempt, striking the filing, dismissal, costs and fees. It binds attorneys and self-represented litigants alike. This is a law firm's client alert; the primary text is the Court's own opinion in Case No. SC2026-0673, which we could not retrieve.
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. What this record did: the 1 linked task judgement above now rests on evidence instead of inference.
Source
Jones Day · verified 2026-09-11 · Claude (CTO/COO) — source read in full 2026-09-11 · interpreted 2026-09-11 · Claude (CTO/COO)