TECHNOLOGY CORNER
TECHNOLOGY CORNER
Mandatory AI Disclosures on Court Filings: Is There A Better Solution?( Continued)
CHRISTOPHER B. HOPKINS
Fourth, courts should consider mandatory hyperlinks. Hyperlinks allow the judge and all parties to confirm that the cited authority exists with a single click. Mandatory hyperlinks would not prevent every misuse, because litigants can still cite a real case for a proposition it does not support. Paired with a onetime verification certification, however, hyperlinks add more value than just a disclosure.
Fifth, the courts might clarify the consequences for submitting fabricated authority. Florida appellate courts addressing hallucinated citations have consistently emphasized personal responsibility. However, sanctions for lawyers have been consistently severe, while pro se litigants sometimes receive admonishments or warnings. See Francois v. Vive and Goya v. Hayashida. A clear announcement from the appellate courts, delivered with the front-end notice measures suggested above, would help supply the deterrence Judge Lott found missing in after-the-fact remedial orders.
None of these alternatives requires lawyers or litigants to identify the AI products they used. Each focuses on the real problem: verified citations and accountable filers. The administrative orders reflect a legitimate concern, and the courts are right to protect the integrity of the record. Future versions of the orders should narrow the identified harm, move the advisement to the front of the case, and reconsider whether platform disclosure is necessary.
Christopher B. Hopkins is a partner at Hopkins PA. Counterpoints welcome at chopkins @ hopkinspa. com, especially after AI has checked them for tone and citation integrity.
PBCBA BAR BULLETIN 25