Florida Just Drew a Line on AI in Court
An appellate sanctions warning, mandatory disclosure orders in Miami-Dade and Broward, and a clear message from the bench: AI is permitted. Unchecked AI is not.
If you practice law in Florida and you are using AI in any capacity - research, drafting, document review, client communications - the rules just changed. Not in a theoretical, "keep an eye on this" way. In a concrete, "this affects your next filing" way.
Three developments have converged in the last 90 days to create a new compliance landscape for Florida attorneys. Taken together, they represent the clearest signal yet from Florida's courts that AI use in legal practice is welcome - but only under conditions of disclosure, verification, and accountability.
What Happened
Florida's Fourth DCA Issues First AI-Specific Sanctions Warning
In Gouveia v. Meridian Financial Investments, LLC, the Fourth District Court of Appeal identified AI-generated content in the defendant's appellate brief and issued an explicit warning: future unchecked use of AI in filings may result in sanctions under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.210(c).
The court did not sanction Gouveia in this case. But it put the warning in the published opinion - meaning it is now citable precedent and fair notice to every litigant and attorney who files in the Fourth DCA. The concurring opinion went further, calling out the "AI-slop problem" by name and noting that remedial warnings alone will not prevent the problem because new pro se litigants will never have seen them. The concurrence urged systemic solutions rather than case-by-case admonishment.
Miami-Dade and Broward Mandate AI Disclosure in All Court Filings
Florida's 11th Judicial Circuit (Miami-Dade) and 17th Judicial Circuit (Broward) issued administrative orders requiring attorneys and self-represented litigants to disclose generative AI use on the face of any court filing and certify that all citations and factual assertions have been independently verified.
The required certification must state, in substantial 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."
Sanctions for noncompliance include striking the filing, monetary penalties, contempt proceedings, and referral to the Florida Bar.
Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1
Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1, issued in early 2024, established that attorneys using generative AI must ensure competence, maintain confidentiality, supervise AI-generated output, and communicate AI use to clients when material. The opinion did not create new rules - it clarified that existing obligations apply with full force to AI-assisted legal work. The Miami-Dade and Broward administrative orders operationalize this guidance with specific disclosure and certification requirements.
Why This Matters
Florida is leading, not following. While other states are still debating whether to require AI disclosure, Florida now has both appellate precedent and circuit-level administrative orders creating concrete obligations. The Fourth DCA's published opinion gives every Florida court a citation to point to when AI-related issues arise. And other states are watching - Florida's framework is practical enough to serve as a template.
The concurrence in Gouveia identifies the real problem. The concurring opinion correctly noted that case-by-case warnings are insufficient because new pro se litigants will never see them. The systemic problem is that consumer AI tools present themselves as capable legal advisors to people who cannot evaluate the quality of their output. This is the same tension at the heart of the Heppner privilege ruling and the broader national debate. The legal system is beginning to grapple with a fundamental question: what obligations do AI platforms have when their users treat them as legal authorities?
What Florida Attorneys Should Do Right Now
- Know your circuit's requirements. If you practice in Miami-Dade or Broward, the disclosure and certification requirements are already in effect. Check whether your circuit has issued its own administrative order - more are coming.
- Build AI disclosure into your workflow now, even if not yet required. If your circuit has not yet issued an order, adopt the 11th Circuit's certification language voluntarily. When the statewide standard arrives - and it will - you will already be compliant. More importantly, voluntary disclosure demonstrates the kind of professional diligence that protects you if something goes wrong.
- Create a firm-wide AI verification standard. The certification requires that citations and facts be "independently reviewed and verified." What does that look like in your practice? Who verifies? How thoroughly? What is the documentation? If you do not have answers, you are not ready to sign the certification.
- Audit your current AI use. If associates or paralegals are using consumer AI tools for research or drafting without a firm policy, you are exposed. The Gouveia concurrence made clear that "AI-slop" - unchecked, unverified AI output - is now a term of art in Florida appellate opinions. That is not where you want your firm's work product to land.
- Talk to your clients. If your clients are using AI for anything related to their legal matters - and many are - they need to understand the risks. The Heppner privilege ruling showed what happens when clients use consumer AI without counsel's direction. Florida's disclosure rules add another layer: if AI-generated content ends up in a court filing, someone has to certify it.
What Business Leaders Should Know
This is not just a lawyer problem. If your company is involved in litigation in Florida - as a plaintiff, defendant, or party to a regulatory proceeding - the AI disclosure requirements affect you indirectly but meaningfully.
If your employees used AI to prepare documents that your attorney later incorporates into a filing, your attorney now has an obligation to disclose that AI involvement and verify the content. If your internal team is producing AI-generated analysis, summaries, or communications that touch legal matters, those materials may be subject to discovery - and the privilege analysis is uncertain, as the Heppner and Warner decisions demonstrated.
The practical takeaway: coordinate with your outside counsel about AI use in anything litigation-adjacent. What your team produces internally can have consequences in court that neither your team nor your attorney anticipated.
Key References: Gouveia v. Meridian Financial Investments, LLC, No. 4D2024-2588 (Fla. 4th DCA, Mar. 25, 2026); 11th Judicial Circuit Administrative Order No. 26-04 (Jan. 15, 2026); 17th Judicial Circuit Administrative Order 2026-03-Gen (Feb. 26, 2026); Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 (Jan. 2024).
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult qualified counsel for guidance specific to your situation.
JDAI helps Florida law firms develop AI governance frameworks - from disclosure policies and verification standards through attorney training and ongoing compliance support.
Schedule a Consultation Take the AI Readiness Assessment