June 24, 2026 – State and federal courts have seen more than 1,100 cases with artificial intelligence (AI) hallucinations – fake law – according to Damien Charlotin, of Pelekan Data Consulting in Paris, who has tracked the phenomenon internationally.

The Florida Supreme Court created a rule, effective June 15, that for any filing, “each signer represents that … the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited.”

The rule, which amends Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2), also authorizes sanctions for violations, including “reprimand, contempt, striking of the document, dismissal of proceedings, costs, [and] attorneys’ fees.”

The National Center for State Courts shows at least 43 states have responded in some way to the problem, such as by creating task forces or enacting policies, guidelines, rules, or statutes governing AI use in courts.

In Wisconsin, a rule petition filed on Feb. 19 proposes a new chapter of Supreme Court Rules to govern use of AI in Wisconsin courts. The supreme court has yet to act on it.

Last fall, the Director of State Courts Office convened an AI Committee to consider best ethical practices for the technology for state court “employees, judicial officers, partners, and stakeholders.”

Florida’s Evolution

Florida’s path to a statewide rule shows a common evolution of court rules to manage AI.

The Florida Bar released Ethics Opinion 24-1 on Jan. 19, 2024, describing AI and ethics challenges in using AI.

A two-page section of the opinion covers AI oversight, advising “many of the standards applicable to nonlawyer assistants provide useful guidance for a lawyer’s use of generative AI.”

Specifically, “a lawyer must review the work product of a generative AI in situations similar to those requiring review of the work of nonlawyer assistants such as paralegals.”

The American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rule of Professional Conduct 5.3 defines those supervisory duties.

Failure to take this critical step, the opinion explains, means lawyers risk violating duties of competence (Rule 1.1), candor to the court (Rule 3.3), and truthfulness to others (Rule 4.1).

Later in 2024, the Florida Supreme Court amended the comments to the state rules of professional conduct to note that AI use raises ethical issues of confidentiality (Rule 1.6), supervisory duties to other lawyers (Rule 5.1), and supervision of non-lawyer assistants (Rule 5.3).

Several Florida judicial circuits, which can span multiple counties, created local rules governing AI in 2025 and 2026. Miami-area circuits adopted theirs in December 2025 and January 2026.

Kelsey Black, managing partner of Black Law, P.A. in Fort Lauderdale and Tampa, pointing to the Miami-Dade and Broward local orders, described the rules as a “patchwork” with “different approach[es].”

Uniformity

The Florida Supreme Court explained that it acted to create a statewide rule to ensure uniformity to replace “varied circuit court administrative orders imposing disclosure and certification requirements about the use of artificial intelligence in filings.”

The local rules authorized sanctions. The new supreme court rule includes the power to sanction “to avoid uncertainty over courts’ continuing authority to impose sanctions in this context.”

In addition to the new practice rules, the supreme court issued an administrative order precluding use of local rules covered by the new statewide AI rule.

“These [local] 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 supreme court explained.

Florida’s rule reflects the model of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b), which defines what a signature on a pleading means.

The lawyer represents under Rule 11 that the pleading “is not being presented for an improper purpose” and makes claims, defenses, and legal contentions “warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument” to change the law.

The new rule adds a fourth representation for Florida lawyers.

The other three representations indicate those lawyers signing the pleading have “read the document,” have “good grounds to support the document,” and that “the document is not interposed for delay.”

Florida’s rule also doesn’t require the pleading to state that AI was used or to specify which AI tool the lawyer used, as some Florida circuit rules required.

Agreement

Because the supreme court hadn’t published and requested public comment before releasing the new rule, interested parties have until Aug. 11 to submit comments and request oral argument.

Initial reviews of the rule support the supreme court’s approach.

“These amendments reinforce that generative AI is a tool, not a substitute for professional judgment,” said Florida Bar Gov. Gordon Glover, co-chair of the Florida Bar’s Special Committee on Artificial Intelligence Tools & Resources.

“Lawyers can benefit from these technologies,” Glover said, “but they must independently verify the accuracy of everything submitted to the court.”

Black advises, “[v]erify AI-assisted work twice. Generative tools can fabricate convincing-sounding case names and pinpoint citations. A ‘looks right’ check is not enough. Pull the case.”

The new rules thoughtfully “embrac[e] innovation while preserving the profession’s core ethical duties,” Glover said.

The explicit requirement to verify citations may benefit law practice by demanding best practices that ensure AI becomes an efficiency tool.

Assistant Professor Chrissann Ruehle of Florida Gulf Coast University in Fort Myers explained that “some research shows case load management can improve between 18% and 32%” in law firms using AI.

“But if people don’t check their work, productivity can actually drop.”