Artificial intelligence has quickly become part of the modern lawyer’s toolkit. Attorneys are using generative AI platforms to assist with legal research, drafting, editing, and document review. While these technologies can improve efficiency, a growing number of court filings across the country demonstrate a significant risk: AI-generated hallucinations, including fabricated case citations, nonexistent authorities, and inaccurate quotations.

Recent sanctions decisions from federal and state courts have highlighted the problem. Judges have encountered briefs containing cases that do not exist, citations that do not support the propositions for which they are offered, and legal analyses generated by AI systems without adequate attorney verification. These incidents have reinforced a fundamental principle of legal practice: lawyers—not software—remain responsible for the accuracy of every filing submitted to a court.

Recognizing these concerns, the Florida Supreme Court has amended Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515 to establish a clear statewide standard governing representations made when documents are filed in Florida courts.

Florida’s New Rule

Effective June 15, 2026, Rule 2.515(d)(2) requires every signer of a court filing to represent that:

“the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited.”

The amendment applies not only to attorneys but also to self-represented litigants.

The Court’s action reflects growing concern about the use of generative AI tools that may produce authoritative-sounding but inaccurate information. In its per curiam opinion, the Court expressly noted that generative AI systems “can generate content that appears plausible but is in fact inaccurate, including fabricated or ‘hallucinated’ authorities.”

A Statewide Response to a Growing Problem

Rather than adopting a patchwork of local requirements, the Florida Supreme Court chose a statewide approach. According to the Court’s commentary, the amendments were adopted

“principally to create a statewide, uniform replacement for varied circuit court administrative orders imposing disclosure and certification requirements about the use of artificial intelligence in filings.”

New Sanctions Authority

The amended rule also expressly authorizes courts to impose sanctions when a filing is inconsistent with the signer’s certification. The rule provides that sanctions may be imposed after notice and an opportunity to be heard and may include:

  • Reprimand;
  • Contempt;
  • Striking the document;
  • Dismissal of proceedings;
  • Costs;
  • Attorneys’ fees; or
  • Other appropriate sanctions.

Although courts already possessed various sanctioning powers, the Florida Supreme Court made clear that the new provision is intended to eliminate uncertainty regarding courts’ authority to address inaccurate filings in the AI context.

What This Means for Lawyers

The amendment does not prohibit the use of AI. Nor does it require attorneys to disclose every instance in which AI assisted with drafting or research. Instead, it reinforces a basic professional obligation that predates artificial intelligence: lawyers must independently verify the accuracy of the legal authorities cited in their filings.

As generative AI becomes more sophisticated and more widely used, attorneys should consider implementing safeguards such as:

  1. Independently reviewing every citation generated by AI tools.
  2. Confirming that all cited authorities actually exist.
  3. Reading the underlying cases rather than relying on AI-generated summaries.
  4. Verifying quotations, pinpoint citations, and procedural histories.
  5. Establishing firm policies governing AI-assisted drafting and legal research.
  6. Training lawyers and staff regarding the risks of AI hallucinations and citation errors.

The Continuing Duty of Professional Judgment

The Florida Supreme Court’s amendment serves as a reminder that technological innovation does not alter a lawyer’s fundamental duties of competence, diligence, and candor to the tribunal. AI may assist in the drafting process, but it cannot replace the attorney’s obligation to ensure that every legal authority presented to a court is real, accurate, and properly cited.

Photo of Joseph J. Lazzarotti Joseph J. Lazzarotti

Joseph J. Lazzarotti is a principal in the Berkeley Heights, New Jersey, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He founded and currently co-leads the firm’s Privacy, Data and Cybersecurity practice group, edits the firm’s Privacy Blog, and is a Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP)…

Joseph J. Lazzarotti is a principal in the Berkeley Heights, New Jersey, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He founded and currently co-leads the firm’s Privacy, Data and Cybersecurity practice group, edits the firm’s Privacy Blog, and is a Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP) with the International Association of Privacy Professionals. Trained as an employee benefits lawyer, focused on compliance, Joe also is a member of the firm’s Employee Benefits practice group.

In short, his practice focuses on the matrix of laws governing the privacy, security, and management of data, as well as the impact and regulation of social media. He also counsels companies on compliance, fiduciary, taxation, and administrative matters with respect to employee benefit plans.

Privacy and cybersecurity experience – Joe counsels multinational, national and regional companies in all industries on the broad array of laws, regulations, best practices, and preventive safeguards. The following are examples of areas of focus in his practice:

  • Advising health care providers, business associates, and group health plan sponsors concerning HIPAA/HITECH compliance, including risk assessments, policies and procedures, incident response plan development, vendor assessment and management programs, and training.
  • Coached hundreds of companies through the investigation, remediation, notification, and overall response to data breaches of all kinds – PHI, PII, payment card, etc.
  • Helping organizations address questions about the application, implementation, and overall compliance with European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and, in particular, its implications in the U.S., together with preparing for the California Consumer Privacy Act.
  • Working with organizations to develop and implement video, audio, and data-driven monitoring and surveillance programs. For instance, in the transportation and related industries, Joe has worked with numerous clients on fleet management programs involving the use of telematics, dash-cams, event data recorders (EDR), and related technologies. He also has advised many clients in the use of biometrics including with regard to consent, data security, and retention issues under BIPA and other laws.
  • Assisting clients with growing state data security mandates to safeguard personal information, including steering clients through detailed risk assessments and converting those assessments into practical “best practice” risk management solutions, including written information security programs (WISPs). Related work includes compliance advice concerning FTC Act, Regulation S-P, GLBA, and New York Reg. 500.
  • Advising clients about best practices for electronic communications, including in social media, as well as when communicating under a “bring your own device” (BYOD) or “company owned personally enabled device” (COPE) environment.
  • Conducting various levels of privacy and data security training for executives and employees
  • Supports organizations through mergers, acquisitions, and reorganizations with regard to the handling of employee and customer data, and the safeguarding of that data during the transaction.
  • Representing organizations in matters involving inquiries into privacy and data security compliance before federal and state agencies including the HHS Office of Civil Rights, Federal Trade Commission, and various state Attorneys General.

Benefits counseling experience – Joe’s work in the benefits counseling area covers many areas of employee benefits law. Below are some examples of that work:

  • As part of the Firm’s Health Care Reform Team, he advises employers and plan sponsors regarding the establishment, administration and operation of fully insured and self-funded health and welfare plans to comply with ERISA, IRC, ACA/PPACA, HIPAA, COBRA, ADA, GINA, and other related laws.
  • Guiding clients through the selection of plan service providers, along with negotiating service agreements with vendors to address plan compliance and operations, while leveraging data security experience to ensure plan data is safeguarded.
  • Counsels plan sponsors on day-to-day compliance and administrative issues affecting plans.
  • Assists in the design and drafting of benefit plan documents, including severance and fringe benefit plans.
  • Advises plan sponsors concerning employee benefit plan operation, administration and correcting errors in operation.

Joe speaks and writes regularly on current employee benefits and data privacy and cybersecurity topics and his work has been published in leading business and legal journals and media outlets, such as The Washington Post, Inside Counsel, Bloomberg, The National Law Journal, Financial Times, Business Insurance, HR Magazine and NPR, as well as the ABA Journal, The American Lawyer, Law360, Bender’s Labor and Employment Bulletin, the Australian Privacy Law Bulletin and the Privacy, and Data Security Law Journal.

Joe served as a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Laura Denvir Stith on the Missouri Court of Appeals.

Read more about Joseph J. Lazzarotti
Show more Show less