AI Disclosure Requirements in Florida Courts: What Attorneys Must Know in 2026

In 2024 and 2025, Florida circuit courts began responding to a small but visible set of incidents in which attorneys filed work product containing fabricated case citations generated by AI tools. The judicial response was specific: standing orders requiring disclosure of AI use on the face of any filing, and certification that any AI-generated content has been verified.

By 2026, the 11th Judicial Circuit (Miami-Dade) and the 17th Judicial Circuit (Broward) have both adopted these requirements. Other circuits are following. This article describes what the existing orders require, how they interact with Florida Bar Rule 4-3.3, and what compliance looks like in operational terms for a Florida litigation firm.

The Underlying Concern

The disclosure orders did not appear in a vacuum. They responded to *Mata v. Avianca, Inc.*, the 2023 federal Southern District of New York case in which counsel filed a brief containing fabricated case citations generated by ChatGPT and were sanctioned. Similar incidents followed in other jurisdictions. By 2024, the question for Florida courts was not whether sanctions were available (Rule 4-3.3 already prohibited knowing false statements to a tribunal) but whether prophylactic disclosure rules would prevent the failure mode in the first place.

The orders address a specific architecture of failure: an attorney delegates research or drafting to a generative AI tool, the tool produces plausible-sounding but fabricated content, the attorney does not verify the content before filing, and the tribunal is misled. Disclosure requirements force a checkpoint at which the attorney must affirmatively certify that verification occurred.

The 11th Judicial Circuit Order

The 11th Judicial Circuit (Miami-Dade) issued an Administrative Order in 2024 requiring that any attorney filing a document in the circuit certify whether the document was prepared with the assistance of generative AI, and if so, certify that any AI-generated content has been verified for accuracy.

The operational requirement is a certification statement on the face of the filing. The certification is part of the attorney's signature block or appears in a designated section of the document. The certification language is prescribed by the order and should be reproduced verbatim from the current text of the order.

What counts as AI use under the order is broader than many attorneys initially assume. The order applies to:

• Use of generative AI to draft any portion of the filing
• Use of generative AI to research case law or statutory authority cited in the filing
• Use of generative AI to summarize documents whose content informs the filing
• Use of AI tools that perform substantive analysis incorporated into the filing

The order generally does not apply to:

• Spell check, grammar check, and similar non-generative editing tools
• Document management system search functions that retrieve existing documents without generating new content
• Translation tools that translate existing content without generating new content

The line between covered and uncovered use can be uncertain at the margins. When in doubt, attorneys generally disclose. Disclosure is a low-cost compliance step. Non-disclosure followed by an AI-attributed problem in the filing creates a sanctions risk that disclosure prevents.

The 17th Judicial Circuit Order

The 17th Judicial Circuit (Broward) issued a substantially similar order. The certification requirements track the 11th Circuit's structure. Attorneys practicing in both circuits should review each circuit's current order text because the prescribed language and the scope of covered uses can differ in detail.

Other Florida circuits have either adopted similar orders or signaled that they are considering them. Litigation attorneys should monitor circuit-level standing orders in addition to bar-level guidance. The Florida Bar News tracks circuit-level rule changes; circuit court websites publish current administrative orders.

How the Disclosure Orders Interact with Rule 4-3.3

Florida Bar Rule 4-3.3(a)(1) prohibits a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal. The rule predates the AI disclosure orders by decades. It already prohibited the conduct that gave rise to the orders.

The disclosure orders add a procedural requirement on top of the substantive duty. Under Rule 4-3.3 alone, an attorney who filed AI-generated content containing fabricated citations could be sanctioned for the false statements regardless of whether AI was disclosed. Under the disclosure orders, the same attorney faces an additional question: did you certify whether AI was used? If yes, did you verify the content as the certification required?

The combined effect is that an attorney has three obligations on every filing:

1. Substantive accuracy under Rule 4-3.3
2. Disclosure of AI use on the face of the filing under the local order
3. Certification of verification under the local order

A failure on any of the three is independently sanctionable. The disclosure orders do not narrow Rule 4-3.3; they layer on top of it.

What Counts as Verification

The certification requirements use the word "verified" or similar language. What does verification actually require?

The minimum bar is that the attorney has confirmed that the cited authorities exist and stand for the proposition cited. For case citations, this means the attorney has located the case (in Westlaw, Lexis, or another reliable research tool), confirmed the citation is correct, and confirmed the case stands for the proposition cited. For statutory citations, the same: the attorney has located the statute, confirmed the citation, and confirmed the language supports the proposition.

For factual claims drawn from documents, verification means the attorney has located the source document and confirmed the AI-summarized content accurately reflects the source. For document search systems that return source citations on every answer, verification is fast: the citation points directly to the source location.

The verification standard does not depend on the tool. It depends on the content. If the AI tool generated case citations, the attorney verifies the case citations. If the tool generated factual summaries, the attorney verifies the summaries against the underlying documents.

Operational Compliance: A Filing-Level Checklist

A litigation firm operating under the 11th or 17th Circuit disclosure orders typically implements a filing-level compliance checklist. The checklist runs at the same point as the firm's other pre-filing checks.

Step	Action	Owner
1	Identify whether any AI tool was used in preparation of the filing	Drafting attorney
2	If yes, identify which portions involved AI assistance	Drafting attorney
3	Verify each AI-assisted citation, factual claim, or analysis against the underlying source	Drafting attorney
4	Add the prescribed disclosure and certification language to the filing	Drafting attorney
5	Confirm the certification is signed	Drafting attorney
6	Document the verification process in the matter file	Drafting attorney

The documentation step matters. If a filed document is later challenged, the firm's contemporaneous record of the verification process is the evidence that the certification was made in good faith.

On-Premise Document Search and Disclosure Posture

The disclosure orders apply to use of generative AI broadly. They do not exempt on-premise systems. An attorney who uses an on-premise AI document search system to find the case law cited in a brief, or to summarize a document referenced in the brief, has used AI within the scope of the order.

That said, on-premise document search has a verification advantage. Because the system returns answers with source citations on every response, the verification step (confirming each cited source) is fast and reliable. An attorney can verify the AI's retrieval against the cited source in seconds rather than minutes. This does not change the disclosure obligation, but it makes compliance with the certification requirement straightforward.

The architectural difference between cloud and on-premise systems matters for Rule 4-1.6 (confidentiality) but not for the disclosure orders. The disclosure orders are agnostic to where the AI processing occurs; they care about whether AI was used and whether the output was verified.

Sanctions Risk for Non-Disclosure

A Florida attorney who fails to comply with a circuit's AI disclosure order faces several layers of risk:

• Direct sanctions under the local order, which typically include fines, dismissal of the affected filing, or referral to the Florida Bar
• Rule 4-3.3 exposure if the AI-generated content contained false statements to the tribunal
• Rule 4-1.1 exposure if the failure to verify AI output reflects a competence failure
• Florida Bar disciplinary action if a referral leads to a grievance proceeding
• Reputational risk within the local bar, which is a small community in most Florida circuits

The cost-benefit analysis weighs heavily toward disclosure. Disclosure imposes a small operational burden (a certification line on the filing). Non-disclosure followed by an AI-attributed problem creates multi-layer sanctions exposure.

What Mi Assist Legal Does

Mi Assist Legal is an on-premise AI document search system installed inside the firm's office. It returns answers to natural-language questions grounded in the firm's case files, with source citations on every answer. The architecture supports the verification step the disclosure orders require: every retrieved answer points to the specific document and page where the supporting language appears.

The system does not eliminate the attorney's duty to disclose AI use under the 11th and 17th Circuit orders, or under any future Florida circuit orders. The certification still applies. But the verification work that the certification requires is faster on a system that cites its sources by default. How the system works describes the citation architecture in detail.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Do I need to disclose use of an on-premise AI document search system?

The 11th and 17th Circuit orders apply to use of generative AI broadly, including on-premise systems that perform AI-assisted retrieval, summarization, or analysis incorporated into a filing. Disclosure is generally required. Attorneys should consult the current text of the local order in the circuit where the filing is made.

Q: What if I only used AI to summarize one document, not to write the brief?

If the AI-generated summary informed the content of the filing, the use is generally within the scope of the disclosure order. The verification certification still applies: the attorney must confirm that the summary accurately reflects the underlying document.

Q: Does using Westlaw or Lexis count as AI use that requires disclosure?

The disclosure orders generally apply to generative AI tools, not to traditional research databases. Westlaw and Lexis search functions that retrieve existing cases without generating new content typically do not trigger disclosure. AI-powered features within those tools (such as AI summarization or AI question-answering) likely do, depending on how the feature is used in preparing the filing. Attorneys should review the current text of the local order for the precise scope.

Q: Are other Florida circuits adopting similar disclosure rules?

As of 2026, the 11th and 17th Circuits have the most explicit orders. Other circuits are at various stages of consideration or implementation. Attorneys practicing across multiple circuits should monitor each circuit's current administrative orders. The Florida Bar News and circuit court websites are the authoritative sources.

Q: What sanctions have actually been imposed for AI-related disclosure failures?

As of the publication date, the most cited sanction was the federal sanctions order in *Mata v. Avianca, Inc.* (S.D.N.Y. 2023). Florida-specific sanctions under the disclosure orders have been limited but increasing. Attorneys evaluating risk should review the most recent Florida Bar disciplinary reports for current trends.

---

This article is intended for educational purposes for Florida litigation attorneys. It does not constitute legal advice. Attorneys should consult the current text of any circuit's administrative order before filing.