AI is deeply integrated into much of our daily lives, enhancing convenience and efficiency through tools like ChatGPT, virtual assistants, social media algorithms, navigation apps, and more.
Advancements in legal technology combined with AI are moving many law firms to integrate these tools into their daily operations.
AI usage among legal professionals has nearly doubled in the past year. Two-thirds of legal professionals use AI-powered tools at least occasionally, with 24% using them daily, according to a recent survey done by Thomson Reuters.
Among legal professionals currently using AI tools:
- 77% use it for document review.
- 74% use it for legal research.
- 74% use it to summarize documents.
- 59% use it to draft briefs or memos.
But as AI becomes more integrated in the practice of law, it raises ethical and regulatory questions that require careful consideration. How can lawyers use AI responsibly? What frameworks must be developed to ensure ethical practice while embracing innovative technologies?
In January 2024, the Florida Bar Board of Governors approved the nation’s first comprehensive guidelines for the ethical use of artificial intelligence in the practice of law. Ethics Opinion 24-1 advises that a lawyer obtain “the affected client’s informed consent prior to utilizing a third-party generative AI program if the utilization would involve the disclosure of any confidential information.” It also states, “lawyers remain responsible for their work product and professional judgment and must develop policies and practices to verify that use of generative AI is consistent with the lawyer’s ethical obligations.”
This was followed by a series of AI-related amendments to various Florida Bar Rules, including Chapter 4 Preamble: A Lawyer’s Responsibilities; Rule 4-1.1 (Competence); Rule 4-1.3 (Diligence); and Rule 4-1.6 (Confidentiality of Information). These were approved by the Supreme Court on August 29, 2024 in In Re: Amendments to Rules Regulating The Florida Bar – Chapter 4, Case No. SC2024-0032.
In summary, the Rules address the risks of Generative AI (GenAI), a lawyer’s duty to understand the technology, the importance of protecting client data, and actively supervising non-lawyer assistants (paralegals, secretaries, and virtual staff).
NEW Rules: Disclosure, Certification of AI Use in Court Filings
Chief judges in Miami-Dade and Broward counties, recently issued AI-related administrative orders governing the 11th and 17th judicial circuits, respectively. The Orders require lawyers and self-represented litigants to disclose AI-generated court submissions, and to certify their accuracy.
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Chief Judge Carol-Lisa Phillips issued Administrative Order 2026-03-Gen, “Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings,” on January 26, 2026.
In addition to disclosing the use of AI on the face of the document, pleading, and/or filing, the order requires the following disclaimer to be included:
“The undersigned herby certifies that generative artificial intelligence was used to prepare this [TITLE OF DOCUMENT BEING FILED]. The undersigned has independently verified the accuracy of every citation to the law and /or the record, and the accuracy of any language drafted by generative artificial intelligence, including quotations, citations, paraphrased assertions, facts, and legal analysis.”
The Order goes on to state that failure to include the required disclosure/certification and/or the submission of false or misleading AI-generated content will be grounds for sanctions, as permitted by law. These sanctions may include contempt; striking of pleadings or dismissal of actions; fines and/or the imposition of attorney’s fees; and referral to The Florida Bar for disciplinary proceedings.
Eleventh Judicial Circuit Chief Judge Ariana Fajardo Orshan issued Administrative Order No. 26-04 “Re: Disclosure of Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence by Attorneys and Self-Represented Litigants,” on January 15, 2026.
The three-page order addresses “Applicability,” “Mandatory Disclosure of AI Use,” “Required Certification,” “Duty of Candor and Responsibility,” “Prohibited Conduct,” and “Sanctions.”
The required certification and standardized language that must appear on all AI-generated court submissions at the conclusion of the filing or immediately above the signature block must read:
“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.”
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.”
Rules 4-5.1, 4-5.2, and 4-5.3 make clear that lawyers are bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct, regardless of whether they are using AI or delegating tasks to non-lawyer staff. This means that AI can be a useful tool, but the lawyer must review and verify the work (in the same manner as a lawyer reviews any other work coming from his or her office).
Reliance on the use of AI when practicing law without proper oversight can result in professional misconduct and expose your firm to unnecessary risk. AI compliance is an ongoing process that requires lawyers to be able to demonstrate that their use of AI tools remain aligned with Florida Bar requirements, and applicable state-specific privacy laws.
Lawyers who have a clear understanding of the latest AI laws and can implement strategies to ensure compliance is met firmwide, will be more likely to discover how the benefits of AI integration can outweigh the apparent risks.
The Florida Bar offers this guide, developed by the Special Committee on AI Tools & Resources, as a resource for lawyers exploring the use of AI in their law practice.
Florida’s AI Rules Signal New Era of Accountability for Lawyers | Law.com
