The Florida Supreme Court issued an unanticipated decision on May 28, 2026, No. SC2026-0673. It is titled In Re Amendments to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration. The decision does not alter the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.
The amendments are effective almost immediately, June 15, 2026. And
"Because the amendments were not published for comment previously, interested persons shall have 75 days from the date of this opinion in which to file comments with the Court."
This affords the practitioner and the public an opportunity for comment, which is usually available in the process of "proposed" rules and public comment before adoption.
The Court seeks to require all attorneys and pro se parties, i,e,, "the signer of a document ... to represent that 'the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited.'"
The specific rule language is added to Rule 2.515(2) with the addition of a new subparagraph (D). Existing paragraph 2 states that "(2) Representation by Signer. On filing, each signer represents that" and then provides (A), (B), and (C), which are essentially that the signer read the document, that there is a good faith belief in the grounds of it, and that it is not interposed for delay. The amendment adds (D), which reads:
"(D) the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited."
A secondary effect is to remind
"courts to impose appropriate sanctions for “any filing inconsistent with” the representation a signer makes"
This is accomplished by additional language in the new (D):
The Court may, on its own motion or the motion of a party, impose sanctions for any filing inconsistent with this representation after providing the signer notice and an opportunity to be heard. Such sanctions may include reprimand, contempt, striking of the document, dismissal of proceedings, costs, attorneys’ fees, or other sanctions.
This is permissive authority, "may," and constitutional courts already have full authority to enforce both order generally and to impose sanctions for untoward behavior or actions. The stated target of these amendments to the Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration is
"Generative artificial intelligence tools—including large language models and other systems"
These are blamed for "demonstrated risks of generative AI" and the rules have a stated intention "to promote the accuracy and integrity of court filings." It is particularly noteworthy here that the Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration do not apply in proceedings before Florida Judges of Compensation Claims.
Some might argue that they should, but these are court rules, and the FLOJCC is no court. Despite that, there are frequent lazy or uninformed references to this office as "court."
The broader point, of course, is the duty of candor required of attorneys. But in that, there is an obvious flaw. The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar apply to lawyers and provide ample prohibition on hallucination and misstatement. But these do not apply to pro se litigants.
The provisions of Rule 4-3.3 R.Reg.Fl.Bar, require that lawyers "not knowingly" "make a false statement or fail to correct a false statement of material fact." That requirement is more pervasive and complete than the new certification rule. It is inappropriate ("shall not") to make false statements. This fundamentally includes arguing that a fake case exists.
As important, however, is a parallel challenge so often encountered with artificial intelligence (AI)-generated output. Even when a case citation is accurate, the case may not stand for the proposition or holding for which it is cited. That failing has been repeatedly noted (recently in a Virginia discipline instance that will feature here soon). This broader problem has admittedly existed much longer than AI.
Too often, lawyers delegate their drafting responsibility. This involves and engages clerks, paralegals, and other attorneys. Nonetheless, when an attorney signs a pleading, that attorney is making the representations in the Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration. That attorney is also asserting that both the citations and their described import are true.
There will be various efforts across the country to address the challenges of AI. Days ago, a U.S. Magistrate, according to Reuters,
"asked the U.S. Judicial Conference's rulemaking body to consider adopting a policy akin to one the Florida Supreme Court issued on Thursday."
This suggests that some find significant value in the certification rule. Reuters suggests that a national standard for federal courts would address "a mounting body of rulings nationally sanctioning or admonishing attorneys." And yet, the attorney issue seems aptly addressed by existing rules.
Nonetheless, with the "knowingly" standard of Rule 4-3.3 R.Reg.Fl.Bar, the signing attorney may unintentionally allow the misstatement of holding, logic, and even applicability or relevance.
The citation challenge, finding the authority that is being argued, is addressed. The clarity and relevance of such citations is not addressed by the Court's amendment of Rule 2.515(2). There are arguments that this is a positive step forward in the evolution of AI in legal work and self-representation.
It is unlikely the last step, particularly if the courts are inundated with pro se filings as predicted or reported in recent news. Reuters reported in May 2026 that "more Americans are suing with AI help." This reports that some litigants cannot find willing legal representation and are turning to LLMs instead.
Those parties are finding some disappointments; one noted that she "didn't know AI could be wrong at first." That was likely a revelation, but it should be common knowledge by now. She likened it to learning "Santa Claus was not real," which is reasonably telling if one ponders it even for a moment. Similar "flooding" contentions have appeared in other news outlets, such as the NY Times and Bloomberg, as well as on social media.
In the end, the bottom line likely remains with enforcement. If judges impose appropriate sanctions for the improper and false citation of fictional authority, the practice will likely stop or at least markedly slow. If there is no penalty or detriment, if the "I didn't know Santa Claus was not real" is condoned or accepted by courts, then the lazy AI practice will likely continue regardless of what rules are created.
