TECHNOLOGY CORNER
COURT
COUNSEL
TECHNOLOGY CORNER
Mandatory AI Disclosures on Court Filings: Is There A Better Solution?
CHRISTOPHER B. HOPKINS
In the last four months, the Eleventh, Fifteenth, and Seventeenth Judicial Circuits each adopted administrative orders requiring attorneys and pro se litigants to certify whether generative AI was used in the preparation of each filing. Two of those orders require disclosure of the specific AI platform used. The goal is sound: eliminate AI-hallucinated or fictitious citations. But the mechanism sweeps too broadly, burdening every paper filed in three of Florida’ s busiest circuits.
The orders explain the courts’ concerns. Broward ' s order invokes confidentiality, candor, diligence, plagiarism, and“ appropriate language.” Palm Beach covers similar ground and distinguishes generative AI from traditional AI. Miami- Dade cites to Takefman v. Pickleball Club,
LLC, for the proposition that courts should not have to“ parse case citations and parentheticals to discern whether cases exist.” To ensure citation integrity, the courts require mandatory AI certification on every court filing.
Broward and Palm Beach go further, requiring identification of the AI platform. If Miami-Dade can pursue the same objectives without requiring lawyers and litigants to identify their software, the other circuits might reconsider why they need that information. That disclosure requirement is more intrusive than ordinary procedural rules. Generally, litigants do not even need to disclose who wrote their filings.
Respectfully, the platform-disclosure requirement misses the mark. Whether a litigant uses ChatGPT, Westlaw Precision, or no AI at all, the harm comes from the false citation, not the tool( although, to be nosy, I am curious to learn which AI other lawyers use). Fabricated authority predates AI by decades, and the duty to verify arises from Rule 4-3.3 and Rule
2.515( d)( 2). Disclosure of the platform tells the court nothing about whether the work was verified. A careful lawyer who independently checks every AI-sourced citation will file the same certification as a careless litigant who pastes output into pleadings without reading the cases.
A defender of the rule may respond that naming the platform forces a moment of pause and prompts a closer look at the citations. A one-time verification certification achieves the same result without singling out any technology. Meanwhile, generative AI is already being absorbed, with increasing invisibility, into everything we use. A rule built around verified citations will still make sense when the AI disclosure no longer does.
The administrative orders place the certification requirement on every filing but offer nothing at the beginning of suit, when the warning would do the most good for pro se litigants. Judge Lott ' s concurrence in Gouveia v. Meridian Financial Investments, LLC, 2026 WL 816497( Fla. 4th DCA Mar. 25, 2026), framed the point well. Pro se filers, who are most likely to rely on unverified AI output, are rarely repeat players. By the time that they learn about the administrative order, they may already have filed a paper built on hallucinated authority. Requiring a certification on every( later) filing does little to explain the rule when it matters most.
Fortunately, there are better tools, and Florida courts already have them. First, courts can provide notice at the inception of the case. Florida appellate courts issue Acknowledgment Letters when a notice of appeal is filed. The Fifteenth Circuit immediately issues a case management order in every new civil case, requires service on all parties, and uses that order to communicate basic procedural expectations( other circuits are nearly as fast). A short, prominent paragraph in those documents would warn litigants about AI hallucinations and confirm the obligation to verify every citation. That approach reaches every party at the inception of the case( or at least fairly early), hopefully before any damage is done.
Second, courts could require a single AIcompliance notice at the start of the case. When lawyers file a notice of appearance and designation of email addresses, they could include a certification acknowledging the duty to verify cited authority which establishes a record of notice and personal accountability. The court could instruct pro se litigants to do the same.
Third, courts should target the harm rather than the tool. A technology-neutral certification, made once, that“ all citations will be verified to exist and to stand for the propositions asserted” addresses the actual injury. Requiring certification at the inception of the case puts every filer on early written notice.
( Continued on next page)
COURT
COUNSEL
Hosted by PBCBA ' s Judicial Relations Committee
Every Third Friday of the Month 12:00 P. M.- 1:00 P. M. Register for FREE
Engage with the Fifteenth Circuit Judiciary in a Unique Brown Bag Lunch Setting
PBCBA BAR BULLETIN 24