Forbes recently reported its perception that various adjudicators are imposing "more severe sanctions" for filings that include hallucinated citations. The Florida Supreme Court recently adopted a rule change with the intent to address hallucinations and artificial intelligence. See A Positive Step? (June 2026).
The change in the rule is seen by some as tackling the AI challenge. Others characterize it as "curbing" hallucinations. There is merit in the new rule as it imposes the same obligation on pro se litigants that lawyers already face in the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 4-4.3, Candor Toward the Tribunal.
Nonetheless, the new rule requires only that each person who signs a pleading certify that “the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited.”
What this rule does not patently do is require that the filer actually read those legal authorities or certify that they are pertinent, relevant, and accurately characterized. I note this in A Positive Step? (June 2026) with the absurd example of citing Roe v. Wade for the proposition of federal primacy on the regulation of interstate commerce.
In June 2026, I had the opportunity to present on Artificial Intelligence. The new rule was then still proposed and very much on the audience's mind.
I deduced from the discussions that a real concern remains the "headnote lawyers." I vividly recall this cohort being described in law school so long ago. The legal world existed before the internet, databases, and algorithms. There were longstanding challenges in the process of legal research that required scrutiny of legal decisions.
Legal decisions, to some, represent value. They believe that precedent should be followed, and they refer to this spirit as "the common law." While others find this approach to law anachronistic or worse, there is a long-standing tradition in the common law throughout American history and the legal systems founded on British (or English) foundations and distributed by the colonial era.
To steer and assist the lawyer in this, publishers began summarizing and categorizing legal conclusions in court decisions. They would strive to discern the logic path and holdings of those court decisions. These perceptions and interpretations were published as an adjunct to those decisions in short snippets called "headnotes."
These are not the court's holding or even reasoning. They are what an editor somewhere feels like the point(s) of the court's interpretation are. They are reminiscent of the game of telephone, in which players pass a message around a circle by each whispering in their neighbor's ear. What starts as one thought can easily be astoundingly different after passing from person to person, interpretation to interpretation.
To make matters worse, those who write headnotes like to classify them, adding numbers. This categorization puts certain interpretations together, despite them being slightly or radically different, based on some editor's categorization or labeling. Those numbers were once published in "Digests" so that lawyers could scan pages of similar headnotes without pulling the cases.
The computer made that lazy practice more readily available. With a mouse click or two, a lawyer can look at many editors' opinions very rapidly. The path to misapprehension and misinterpretation is no longer the footpath of books it once was; it is now a veritable autobahn of no speed limit skim-surfing with all the advantages of the World Wide Web.
Thus, there has always been a challenge presented by the lazy and unwitting lawyer who cites a case from such a Digest in full-faith reliance on what some editor put in a book and assigned a number. Those unmitigated failings polluted many a pleading long before the advent of AI. AI does not enable this "Headnote Lawyer" paradigm; it merely makes it more accessible and with greater speed.
There is the real rub. The current rules do not seemingly require that someone citing an authority (case, statute, etc.) understand them, or even read them. The rules require that the authorities cited are real. Certainly, that is an advantage over IA slop or one kind, but nonetheless leaves the door wide open for the same uninformed, misapplied heanote lawyering that plagued us before.
The federal courts are utilizing Rule 11, specifically (b)(2) regarding representations:
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
Referencing that, a Mississippi federal court in Withers v. City of Aberdeen CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24-CV-218-SA-RP (06/08/26) noted
[g]enerative technology can produce words,” it cannot attach “… sincerity, truth, or responsibility to what it writes. That remains the sacred duty of the lawyer who signs the page.” Mattox v. Prod. Innovations Rsch., LLC, 807 F. Supp. 3d 1341, 1343 (E.D. Okla. 2025).
Cocluding that (2) requires knowing the law, the federal judge concluded
“To state ‘the obvious, an attorney who submits fake cases clearly has not read those nonexistent cases, which is a violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.’”
The requirements of Rule 2.515 are not identical, but there is a similarity in (d)(2):
(B) to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information, and belief, there are good grounds to support the document; and
Can a lawyer or pro se litigant determine that "there are good grounds" if they have not read those cited authorities?
Thus, there is the potential that Florida courts will impose sanctions beyond the context of the new citation certification standard. Possibly, there will be an expectation for litigants and lawyers to actually read the authorities they cite, to understand them, to accurately describe their relevance to the dispute.
All that said, there is merit in a more specific reference in both of these rules to clarify the obligation beyond authenticity. The age of information dawns, and the tools are evolving. The day of the headnote lawyer, the lazy reference, and all that entails should conclude.
(a) Signature. Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's name—or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented. The paper must state the signer's address, e-mail address, and telephone number. Unless a rule or statute specifically states otherwise, a pleading need not be verified or accompanied by an affidavit. The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney's or party's attention.
(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
(c) Sanctions.
(1) In General. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.
(2) Motion for Sanctions. A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b). The motion must be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets. If warranted, the court may award to the prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred for the motion.
(3) On the Court's Initiative. On its own, the court may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b).
(4) Nature of a Sanction. A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. The sanction may include nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty into court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation.
(5) Limitations on Monetary Sanctions. The court must not impose a monetary sanction:
(A) against a represented party for violating Rule 11(b)(2); or
(B) on its own, unless it issued the show-cause order under Rule 11(c)(3) before voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the party that is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned.
(6) Requirements for an Order. An order imposing a sanction must describe the sanctioned conduct and explain the basis for the sanction.
Full text of Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration Rule 2.515
RULE 2.515. SIGNATURE AND REPRESENTATIONS TO COURT
(a) Signature Required. Every document filed or served must be signed by the attorney, unrepresented party, or other person authorized by law to file or serve the document as provided in this rule. If a document is not signed or is signed with intent to defeat the purpose of this rule, it may be stricken by the court and the action may proceed as though the document had not been filed or served.
(b) Acts Constituting Signature.
(1) Electronically Filed Documents.
(A) Except as provided in subdivision (b)(1)(B) below, the act of filing a document constitutes the filer’s signature. The signature of each person who is not the filer must be identified as a signer within the document in one of the following ways:
(i) signature block;
(ii) by an electronic signature indicator in the by an electronic signature permitted by law and in accordance with the Florida Courts Technology Standards; or
(iii) when an attorney is filing a document on behalf of an unrepresented party, by the:
a. placement of an electronic signature indicator above the printed name of the unrepresented party on whose behalf the filing is being made and who has requested that the attorney affix the unrepresented party’s electronic signature indicator and file the document; or
b. signature of the unrepresented party in any form recognized by law on the paper document and the inclusion of that document as part of an electronically filed document or with a notice of filing containing the style of the case, the name of the document, and certificate of service.
The electronic signature indicator may be an “/s/” in front of the signer’s printed name or may be in any other form that meets with the Florida Courts Technology Standards.
(B) Notwithstanding (A) above, when an attorney files a document on behalf of an unrepresented party as permitted in subdivision (b)(1)(A)(iii) and when the filing attorney’s signature is omitted from the document, the act of filing that document does not constitute the filer’s signature.
(2) Paper Documents. A person submitting a paper document for filing under rule 2.525(c) must sign the document before submitting it, using any form of signature recognized by law. The person submitting the document becomes its filer for purposes of this rule.
(3) Served Documents. For documents served, but not contemporaneously filed, the act of serving constitutes the server’s signature and the signature of each person identified as a signer.
(c) Signature Block. A document signed under this rule must include a signature block containing the filer and each signer’s name, electronic signature indicator, mailing address, telephone number, and e-mail address for service of court documents (if the document is filed or served electronically). If the signer is an attorney, the signature block must also include the signer’s Florida Bar number and the party the signer represents. If a signer is represented by an attorney who is also a signer, then only the attorney’s information is required.
(d) Representation to Court.
(1) Representation by Filer. By filing a document under rule 2.525, the filer represents that:
(A) the filer has complied with all rules of procedure regarding filing and service of the document;
(B) every person identified as a signer has authorized that person’s signature and the filer accepts responsibility for proving that authority if it is later disputed; and
(C) the document contains no confidential or sensitive information, or that any confidential or sensitive information has been properly protected by complying with rules 2.420 and 2.425.
(2) Representation by Signer. On filing, each signer represents that:
(A) the signer has read the document;
(B) to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information, and belief, there are good grounds to support the document; and
(C) the document is not interposed for delay; and
(D) the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited. 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.
(3) Representation by Person Serving. A person serving a document under rule 2.516 makes the same representations contained in subdivisions (d)(1) and (d)(2).
