Product

Solutions

Security

Company

Resources

Request a Demo

Product

Solutions

Security

Company

Resources

Request a Demo

Article

2026-09-14

AI disclosure rules for court filings: what changes when you sign

Florida now makes every signer represent that cited authorities exist and are accurately cited, while California’s pending SB 574 would add AI disclosure and personal citation verification, making source checking a practical priority before signing.

Thursday night, a partner pauses over a highlighted sentence in a summary judgment response headed for a Florida circuit court. The filing is due at midnight, and the associate’s comment points to a deposition summary rather than the transcript.

At Turbo Law, we see AI disclosure rules for court filings turning attention toward what the signer has checked. Florida requires a representation that authorities exist and are accurately cited, without requiring AI disclosure. California’s pending SB 574 would add disclosure and personal citation verification. Federal Rule 11 already covers law and facts, regardless of how the paper was drafted.

The hypothetical case concerns breach of contract and fraudulent inducement between distributors. Over three weeks, the associate assembled the response from a research memo, a paralegal’s deposition summary and an earlier brief in a related case. It now contains 31 cases and about 70 record references, including exhibits and an expert declaration. Since June 15, the partner’s signature carries Florida’s added representation about authorities, backed by possible sanctions.

Which of those sources did anyone actually open?

What do AI disclosure rules for court filings require now?

As of September 14, 2026, the answer depends on the court: a requirement may concern disclosure of AI use, certification of the filing’s contents, or both.

Those duties ask different things.

A disclosure tells the court something about preparation. A certification puts the signer behind a representation about the paper itself, which requires looking beyond whether someone used AI while drafting it.

Florida has replaced circuit-level AI disclosure and certification requirements with a statewide signer representation. California’s pending bill would combine disclosure with verification obligations. Before preparing a disclosure, establish what the signature represents and what review supports it. A statement acknowledging AI use does not answer whether the quoted deposition testimony supports the argument.

What do AI disclosure rules for court filings require now?

As of September 14, 2026, the answer depends on the court: a requirement may concern disclosure of AI use, certification of the filing’s contents, or both.

Those duties ask different things.

What changed in Florida on June 15, 2026?

Every signer became responsible for an additional representation: “the legal authorities identified exist and are accurately cited”.

The Supreme Court of Florida adopted that language in its May 28, 2026 opinion, In re Amendments to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515, No. SC2026-0673, amending Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2), effective June 15, 2026. It supplements the existing representations that the signer has read the document, has good grounds to support it and is not filing for delay.

Unrepresented parties are covered too.

An inconsistent filing can bring sanctions after notice and an opportunity to be heard, on the court’s own motion or a party’s motion. The listed sanctions include reprimand, contempt, striking the document, dismissal of proceedings, costs and attorneys’ fees.

Administrative Order AOSC26-12, In re: Representations by Signers of Filings, dated May 28 and effective June 15, 2026, bars circuit-level AI disclosure or certification requirements imposed through local orders, policies or judicial practices. Courts may still educate filers and warn about sanctions.

No AI disclosure is required by the amended statewide rule. The authority borrowed from an old brief carries the same representation as the authority supplied by AI.

What would California’s SB 574 add?

California Senate Bill 574, sponsored by Senator Thomas Umberg, would add AI disclosure duties and personal citation verification, but remained pending on September 14, 2026.

It was not yet law.

According to the California Courts Newsroom’s September 3, 2026 report, the bill reached the governor after bipartisan passage in both houses. Attorneys would have to disclose generative AI use in producing court-submitted documents and ensure the accuracy of AI-generated material. They also could not put private client information into nonconfidential AI tools.

The bill text proposes amending California Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 so that filed papers contain no citations the responsible attorney has not personally verified, including citations provided by generative AI. That wording matters when a partner assigns research to an associate but retains responsibility for the filing.

As of this article’s cutoff, the governor’s decision remained outstanding.

Do federal courts require AI disclosure?

No single nationwide federal civil rule requires disclosure whenever AI assists with a filing, though individual judges may have standing orders addressing its use.

Check the assigned judge’s practices.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) already makes presenting a paper, including signing, filing or later advocating it, a certification based on an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances. Under Rule 11(b)(2), legal contentions must be warranted by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for changing it.

Facts count as well. Rule 11(b)(3) addresses evidentiary support, with a qualified allowance for specifically identified factual contentions likely to gain support after further investigation or discovery. Rule 11(d) excludes discovery matters governed by Rules 26 through 37.

A real case citation does nothing to cure a misdescribed deposition answer elsewhere in the brief.

American Bar Association Formal Opinion 512, Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools, issued July 29, 2024, calls for independent review suited to the task. Candor duties continue to apply; lawyers cannot hand their professional judgment over to a tool.

What does your signature certify, cite by cite and fact by fact?

Your signature carries the representations imposed by the governing rule, so the review must reach the material those representations cover.

Start with the actual sentence. We use these questions to turn a general instruction to “check the cites” into work someone can complete and another lawyer can review before the filing leaves the office:

Authority and proposition: Locate the case and read its reasoning. Does it support this proposition, given its jurisdiction, procedural posture and subsequent treatment?
Pinpoint citation: Open the cited page. Confirm that its number belongs to the opinion or transcript being cited and that the passage appears there.
Quotation: Compare the words, including omissions and alterations. Read the surrounding text for qualifications the excerpt leaves behind.
Record support: Check whether the exhibit, declaration or deposition supports the sentence as written. Counsel’s inference should not appear as the witness’s testimony.
Inherited facts: Revisit statements carried over from an earlier summary or related brief against this matter’s current record.

In the distributors’ dispute, the summary might say a witness admitted receiving notice when the transcript establishes only delivery to a shared inbox. The reviewer needs to resolve that difference before approving the sentence.

How do you trace every cite and fact to its source page before signing?

Open the source behind each statement, compare it with the draft, and record what the human reviewer concluded.

Here is how that works for the Thursday-night response inside our workspace. Review reads the whole supplied matter file, including pleadings and productions alongside correspondence, deposition transcripts, expert reports and existing work product. Facts connect to source pages and lines within one connected picture of the case. New records update that picture; chronologies can flag apparent gaps.

The associate starts there. Draft prepares motions using the matter file, the firm’s prior briefs and jurisdictional rules. A passage from the earlier brief still needs checking for its fit with this dispute.

For the notice allegation, the associate follows the source link to the deposition and reads the surrounding exchange. If the testimony establishes delivery to an inbox but not personal receipt, the sentence needs narrowing or an explicit inference.

The link gets the reviewer to the evidence.

Case-law review follows a separate path. Research queries the matter file and public record together across federal and state case law and is designed to identify whether a case has been distinguished or overruled. That is a lead for the lawyer, who must read the opinion and relevant subsequent treatment before relying on it.

Our Assistant returns line-cited work for attorney review and says when the file does not support an answer. Its exportable assignment log shows what was asked, read and produced. An assignment log does not establish that an attorney opened those sources, so the team separately records who checked them and what remained unresolved. The Assistant prepares work product; it does not serve, file or send.

What should a pre-filing check look like for your team?

Assign identifiable review tasks and leave a record the signer can inspect.

Start before the final draft arrives:

Responsible attorney: Check the court’s current rules and the assigned judge’s requirements. Settle the disclosure question before assembling the filing package.
Associate: Read the authorities and test the propositions against them. Verify quotations, revisit inherited facts and mark unresolved questions beside the affected text.
Paralegal or litigation support: Match exhibits to filing attachments and confirm transcript pagination. Send substantive discrepancies to the reviewing attorney.
Signing partner: Read the final document alongside the verification record, identify who checked each authority and factual assertion, and resolve outstanding questions. Substantive edits may require reopening affected sources.

Confidentiality review must happen before client information enters an AI tool. Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1, issued January 19, 2024, addresses protecting client information and verifying AI work, with supervision standards drawn from nonlawyer assistance. Check information-handling terms and any necessary client consent.

ABA Formal Opinion 512 also addresses confidentiality, supervisory policies and training. Staff need to know what verification entails, including when a discrepancy requires a lawyer’s judgment.

No tool signs for you.

FAQ

Do I have to disclose AI use in a Florida state court filing?

The amended statewide rule asks you to stand behind the cited authorities; it does not require disclosure of AI use. Administrative Order AOSC26-12 replaces circuit-level AI disclosure and certification requirements with reliance on that rule.

Does Florida’s rule apply to people representing themselves?

Unrepresented signers are covered. Their signature carries the representation concerning cited authorities. Proceeding without an attorney does not remove that obligation.

Is California SB 574 law yet?

As of September 14, 2026, the bill awaited the governor’s decision. Its disclosure and personal citation-verification provisions remained proposals, not operative requirements under SB 574.

Does Rule 11 cover AI-generated citations?

The drafting method does not change Rule 11’s application to covered papers. Its reasonable-inquiry standard reaches legal contentions and factual support. Finding that a cited case exists is only part of that review.

Can a litigation platform certify a filing for me?

The signer makes the certification. Turbo Law provides work product for attorney review, not legal advice. It cannot certify compliance for you. Before signing, resolve open verification items against their sources and check the current requirements of the court where you will file.

Sources