By Christopher E. Benjamin
County Court Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida
Effective January 15, 2026, the Eleventh Judicial Circuit implemented Administrative Order 26-04, joining other Florida circuits in requiring disclosure when generative artificial intelligence (AI) is used to prepare court filings.[1] This order reflects a broader national transition as courts respond to the integration of generative AI into legal practice. Courts are not prohibiting AI use; rather, they are reinforcing longstanding principles of attorney competence, candor, and certification responsibility. [2]
The order addresses a specific and documented concern: generative AI systems can produce fabricated legal authority, commonly referred to as “hallucinations.” In Takefman v. Pickleball Club, LLC, the Third District Court of Appeal confronted a filing that cited nonexistent cases generated by an AI system and emphasized that courts “should not have to parse case citations and parentheticals to discern whether cases exist.”[3] Administrative Order 26-04 responds to this risk by requiring transparency and reaffirming that the filing party retains full responsibility for accuracy. The Court is fine with the use of intelligence that may be artificial as long as the cases are real.
What Is Generative AI?
Generative AI refers to machine-learning systems that create new content—such as text, images, audio, or video—by identifying patterns learned from large datasets.[4] Unlike traditional legal research tools that find existing authority, generative systems produce original output based on user prompts.[5] The National Institute of Standards and Technology, the American Bar Association, and federal and state authorities have adopted consistent definitions highlighting this content-generation ability.[6]
This distinction is crucial. Retrieval systems, like traditional Westlaw or Lexis searches, find existing legal authority. Generative systems, on the other hand, produce new narrative content, such as legal analyses, summaries, or draft pleadings. The disclosure requirement only applies to the latter. The simple rule of thumb is: if it creates new content, disclose it; if it just checks or reformats existing material, don’t disclose.
Why Disclosure Is Required: Certification and Accountability
The disclosure requirement reinforces existing ethical and procedural duties. Attorneys already attest to the accuracy of filings through their signatures.[7] The Florida Rules of Professional Conduct require competence, supervision, and candor toward the tribunal.[8] Generative AI does not change these obligations. Instead, disclosure requires transparency and confirms that the attorney has independently verified all authority and factual assertions.
Importantly, disclosure does not mean misconduct. Courts focus only on accuracy, reliability, and accountability. Using AI responsibly, along with independent verification, aligns with current professional duties.
Tools That Require Disclosure
Generative AI platforms that create legal text—including ChatGPT, Claude, Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, Lexis+ AI, Westlaw Precision AI, Harvey AI, and similar tools are subject to the disclosure requirement when used to draft or significantly revise filings. These systems generate synthesized content rather than retrieving existing authority.
Tools That Do Not Require Disclosure
Traditional research tools, citation checkers such as Shepard’s and KeyCite, and basic spelling and grammar tools like Grammarly & MS Word’s internal spell check do not require disclosure because they retrieve or correct existing content rather than generating new legal analysis. However, their hybrid versions, Microsoft 365 Copilot and GrammarlyGO’s features, are generative AI when engaged.
Required Disclosure Language
Administrative Order 26-04 provides certification language substantially in the following form:
“Generative artificial intelligence was used in the preparation of this filing. The undersigned certifies that all factual assertions, legal authority, and citations have been independently reviewed and verified for accuracy and accepts full responsibility for the contents of this filing.”
This statement should appear above the signature block or at the conclusion of the filing.
The Broader Transition in Legal Practice
Administrative Order 26-04 marks an early step in a broader evolution of legal practice. Generative AI is rapidly becoming integrated into everyday legal workflows. Courts are responding not by prohibiting these tools, but by ensuring that traditional principles of professional responsibility are maintained.
The core rule remains unchanged: attorneys and self-represented litigants are responsible for the accuracy of every filing they submit to the court. Generative AI is, without a doubt, one of the most significant technological advancements in legal practice. It can generate arguments in seconds, summarize cases in moments, and reorganize complex legal analysis with impressive fluency. When used properly, it is an extraordinary tool. However, it is still just a tool – nothing more. It does not swear an oath, hold a law license, sign pleadings, appear at hearings, or answer to the court – attorneys do that. The responsibility to adhere to professional duties such as competence, candor, diligence, and certification does not diminish with artificial intelligence; these responsibilities remain where they always have – with the attorney whose name appears at the bottom of the page.
The Tool is Artificial, but the Responsibility is Not!
Disclosure:
This article was prepared using generative artificial intelligence. All factual claims, legal references, and citations have been independently checked for accuracy. The author takes full responsibility for the content of this article.
1 Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, Administrative Order No. 26-04 (Jan. 15, 2026).
2 Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.515.
3 Takefman v. Pickleball Club, LLC, 418 So. 3d 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).
4 Exec. Order No. 14110, 88 Fed. Reg. 75191 (Oct. 30, 2023).
5 ABA Formal Op. 512 (2024).
6 NIST AI Risk Management Framework (2024).
7 Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.515.
8 Rules Regulating the Fla. Bar 4-1.1, 4-3.3, 4-5.1.
