Why Florida Supreme Court Got It Right on AI Certifications
The Supreme Court of Florida recently issued Administrative Order No. AOSC26-12, which supersedes local administrative orders by state trial courts that required lawyers to disclose the use of generative artificial intelligence in court filings and certify the accuracy of AI-assisted work product. I believe the Supreme Court got this exactly right.
Prior to this administrative order, several state trial courts in Florida required lawyers to include certificates in their court submissions that state whether generative AI was used in preparing the filing and certifying that all factual assertions, legal authorities, and citations had been independently verified. The concern behind these orders is understandable because, at this point, we have all seen stories of lawyers relying on AI-generated cases that do not exist, misstating the law, or having nothing to do with the proposition for which they are cited.
Requiring lawyers to copy and paste yet another certification into their filings, however, does not solve this problem.
Lawyers are already bound by rules of ethics, professionalism, and candor to the tribunal. These rules impose an obligation on us to ensure that court submissions are accurate, based on governing law, and prepared professionally. Indeed, when a lawyer signs any pleading, motion, or other court submission, that signature already communicates to the court that the lawyer stands behind the filing. It should not matter whether the signing attorney received assistance or input from an associate, a paralegal, an administrative assistant, Westlaw research, or a generative AI platform; the attorney whose signature appears on the document is always responsible for the final product.
That is why I believe AI certifications are redundant. There is no meaningful difference, in my view, between requiring a certificate of AI use and requiring a certificate stating that the lawyer did not blindly accept the first Westlaw search result without reading the case; or that the lawyer did not allow an administrative assistant to prepare the legal argument without attorney oversight. Those are all examples of a lawyer failing to ethically discharge his or her professional duties. The tool they relied on, however, was not the culprit; the problem was the lawyer’s failure to exercise independent professional judgment and verify the contents of a court submission before filing it.
Generative AI is a powerful tool. When used properly, it can reduce the time and mental labor required to prepare legal work, organize arguments, scrutinize drafts, and improve efficiency. But it is not a substitute for legal judgment. AI can generate non-existent cases. It can cite real cases for propositions they do not support. It can confidently generate inaccurate facts, irrelevant authorities, or legal analysis that is incomplete or wrong. That is why the lawyer must review, verify, and take responsibility for the final filing. That obligation, however, already existed before AI platforms.
I think the Florida Supreme Court’s administrative order implicitly recognizes this. Rather than permitting fragmented, circuit-by-circuit AI certification requirements, the Court adopted a uniform, statewide approach. The amended version of Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2) now expressly requires a signing attorney to represent that the legal authorities in the filing exist and are accurately cited. The amended rule also gives courts authority to impose sanctions when court submissions violate this rule. I believe that is the right focus.
Generative AI platforms did not change an attorney’s core obligation to the court and his or her clients. It simply gave lawyers a new tool that must be used ethically and with independent professional judgment. The Florida Supreme Court’s order correctly brings the focus back where it belongs: not on whether AI was used, but on whether the lawyer signing the court submission did the job lawyers are already required to do.
