Two judicial circuits in Florida adopt rule on use of AI

 Two of Florida’s largest judicial circuits now require lawyers and self-represented litigants to disclose AI-generated court submissions, and to certify their accuracy, but according to at least one commentator the new rule essentially just "reminds lawyers of something that predates computers, the internet, and probably most of the courthouses we practice in today: if you put your name on a filing, you are responsible for what is in it."  For more on the story go here and here.

It is true that the new rule states the obvious: that it is required that all AI-generated content must be reviewed for accuracy.  But the new rule goes further by requiring actual disclosure of the use of AI, something I don't think many other jurisdictions are requiring explicitly yet.

According to one source, the order states that “[a]ny attorney or self-represented litigant who uses any generative artificial intelligence tool in the preparation of a pleading, motion, memorandum, response, proposed order, or other court record, must disclose such use on the face of the filing.”

Interestingly, the two circuits apparently did not agree on the appropriate sanctions for violations of the rule.

Failure to comply with the order in the 11th Judicial Circuit could lead to sanctions that include, “striking of the filing; denial of requested relief; monetary sanctions; contempt proceedings; referral to The Florida Bar or other appropriate authority; and any other sanction deemed appropriate by the Court.”

Failure to comply with the order in the 17th Judicial Circuit could lead to sanctions that include, “contempt; striking of pleadings or dismissal of action; fines and/or the imposition of attorney’s fees; and referral to The Florida Bar for disciplinary proceedings.”

Two recent posts on the incompetence and/or misconduct of "Trump lawyers"

 In Politico:  Trump’s inexperienced federal prosecutors are running into trouble in court

In Above the Law: Trump Lawyers Keep Missing Easy Filing Deadlines… How Is This Hard For Them?

Court Sanctions Lawyers From Both Sides In The Same Lawsuit For Filing Briefs With AI-Hallucinated Cases

As you know, cases involving lawyers getting in trouble for using AI generated cites of, or quotes from, non-existent cases keep piling up.  Check out this database for the latest count.

And, if you have been paying attention you might agree with me that the types of sanctions imposed by courts are becoming more severe.  It seems judges are losing patience.

So, today I am writing to report on a recent case in which a federal court in Mississippi sanctioned four attorneys, two on each side of a contract dispute.  What makes the case worth pointing out is not only that so many lawyers were sanctioned but that the court imposed a specific sanction I had not seen yet for cases like this.  The judge disqualified all the lawyers involved in the case, and two out-of-state attorneys who had been admitted pro-hac-vice to participate in the case were  barred from practicing in the Northern District of Mississippi for two years. The judge also said they would send a copy of the sanctions order to the state bars where each of the attorneys are practicing so that those jurisdictions could decide if parallel sanctions would be appropriate.

One of the lawyers reportedly stated that she did not know what hallucinated cases were, which, if true, can be seen as an admission of incompetence in itself at this point.

CNS has a link to the decision here, and Above the Law has a summary here and some analysis here.

New York adopts rule on use of AI

 Effective June 1, 2026, the New York State Unified Court System implemented a new statewide rule (Part 161) governing attorneys’ use of artificial intelligence (AI) in court filings. The rule permits attorneys to use AI tools when preparing submissions to the court and does not require disclosure of AI use. However, attorneys remain fully responsible for the accuracy of any AI-assisted work and must independently verify that filings do not contain fabricated cases, statutes, citations, or other false information.  You can read more details on the story here.

Are we seeing "a quiet restructuring of legal services?

 Just a few days after reporting that Colorado has formally moved to prevent the use of "alternative business structures" in the practice of law, the ABA has published an article suggesting that there is a "quiet restructuring of legal services" through the use of those types of structures and management organizations.  The article starts:  

The legal profession is in the middle of a quiet but very impactful structural shift. In Arizona, alternative business structures have created a regulated pathway for multidisciplinary ownership and innovation. In the rest of the country, management services organizations have emerged as an accepted preferred model for delivering operational sophistication while staying within the boundaries of ABA Model Rule 5.4.

The author argues that traditional law firm structures make long term investment difficult and that Arizona’s ABS framework offers a solution by providing a regulated path for multidisciplinary ownership.  However, he states that in the rest of the country, the management services organizations law firm model has become the preferred alternative. He argues that when structured properly, an MSO does not violate Rule 5.4 because the law firm remains a separate legal entity owned entirely by lawyers, who maintain full independence of legal judgment

And then, there are the states that still strictly enforce bans on sharing fees with non-lawyers or entities, which I believe is still the majority.

I have not done a state by state survey to know which side of the argument is winning but it is obvious that the debate continues.  And, as I have reported elsewhere repeatedly, the debate also continues as to whether the use of alternative structures has created more access to legal services.  Some studies suggest that is not the case, even though that has always been one of the claims of those who support alternative business structures.   

For all my posts on alternative business structures go here.

Legal groups file new ethics complaint against Pam Bondi

About a week and a half ago, it was reported that a coalition of legal groups, judges and attorneys on Wednesday refiled a formal ethics complaint against former Attorney General Pam Bondi, accusing her of “serious professional misconduct” in her leadership of the Justice Department and handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files.  Courthouse News Service has the story here.  Above the Law has more here.

The story says "refiled" because a complaint was filed last year (around June), while she was still in office. (See here). That complaint was rejected by the state of Florida on the basis that the state would not prosecute her while she held her office as Attorney General.  Well, now that she is no longer serving in that capacity, it is time for Florida to decide whether to take on the complaint.  I doubt they will, but I hope I am wrong.  

Article: Why Attorneys Can Ethically Use General-Purpose GenAI for Client Matters Without Redacting Everything

 Carolyn Elefant's new article Why Attorneys Can Ethically Use General-Purpose GenAI for Client Matters Without Redacting Everything is available here.