E-Filing Portal adds AI certification reminder for court filings

A new pop-up notice on Florida’s E-Filing Portal is reminding litigants of a requirement to certify the accuracy of filings under a recently amended statewide procedural rule.

Florida Bar Board of Governors member Gordon Glover, co-chair of the Special Committee on AI Tools & Resources, calls it a “simple but important” reminder to help attorneys and self-represented litigants understand and comply with Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515 (d).

“Placing the reminder directly within the filing process promotes accuracy, accountability, and the responsible use of generative artificial intelligence,” Glover said.

In a June 16 letter, then Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz asked the Florida Courts E-Filing Authority, “as soon as feasible,” to consider posting a notice. Noting that the authority declined a similar proposal in 2024, the letter referred to recommendations Glover’s committee made to the Supreme Court in April.

“Given evolving concerns about potential ‘hallucinated’ authorities or other errors in filings prepared with the assistance of AI, the Court concurred with the Special Committee’s recommendation,” Muñiz wrote.

Muñiz added that a notice would “foster greater responsibility among users of AI tools, complement standards of accuracy and reliability in legal documents submitted to courts, and promote public confidence in court filings statewide.”

The challenges AI poses for the courts are growing nationwide. A database maintained by the legal blog “Artificial Authority” shows there were 1,782 cases in U.S. courts involving fake AI-generated legal citations as of July 18, nearly an eightfold increase from the 230 reports the previous year. A recent Florida Courts Technology Commission report shows that the E-Filing Portal processed more than 1.8 million e-fling submissions in January, and the number of submissions by self-represented litigants has doubled.

Responding to the growing use — and misuse — of generative AI in court filings, the Supreme Court in May amended statewide court rules to require attorneys and self-represented litigants to certify that legal authorities cited in filings are accurate.

Acting on its own motion in Case No. SC2026-0673, the Supreme Court also expressly authorized judges to impose sanctions for filings containing fabricated or inaccurately cited authorities.

In the accompanying commentary, the court said 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.”

Specifically, the court amended Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2) (Representation by Signer) to state that by filing, the signer of a document represents that “the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited.”

The amendment authorizes courts to impose appropriate sanctions — after providing a notice and an opportunity to be heard — for “any filing inconsistent with” the representation a signer makes under the rule.

The court followed up the opinion with an Administrative Order that preempts any circuit AOs requiring certification.

The amendments took effect June 15. However, because they were not published for comment previously, justices set an August 11 deadline to file comments with the court, as well as separate requests for oral arguments, “which may be scheduled in this case.”

The new E-Filing Portal pop-up reminder appears under a blue banner “Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d) Notice.”

It states that “Pursuant to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d) the signer of the filing represents:

(A) the signer has read the document;

(B) to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information, and belief, there are grounds to support the document;

(C) the document is not interposed to delay; and

(D) the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited.”

It continues:

“The Court may impose sanctions for any filing inconsistent with this representation after providing the signer notice and an opportunity to be heard. Such sanctions may include reprimand, contempt, striking of the document, dismissal of proceedings, costs, attorneys’ fees, or other sanctions.”

 

Legal Disclaimer:

EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.