AI rules by state · FL
AI Rules for Lawyers in Florida 2026
- AI disclosure required?
- No
- Governing guidance
- Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 (2024)
- Sanctions on record
- In re Neusom (2024), one-year suspension
- Competence rule
- Rule 4-1.1
- AI / technology CLE
- 3 technology hours / 3 yrs
Quick answer
Florida does not have a general rule requiring lawyers to disclose AI use. The Florida Bar's Ethics Opinion 24-1 requires only that a client-facing AI chatbot disclose that it is an AI program rather than a lawyer. A more recent statewide rule carries greater weight. The Florida Supreme Court's order AOSC26-12, effective June 2026, requires attorneys to certify that the authorities they cite exist and are accurately described.
Ethics guidance
Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1
January 2024
Florida's reference point is the Florida Bar's Ethics Opinion 24-1 on lawyers' use of generative AI, issued in January 2024. It is advisory rather than binding.
The opinion provides that a lawyer may use generative AI only if the lawyer can reasonably ensure compliance with all ethical duties. Those duties include protecting client confidentiality, maintaining competence and accuracy, billing honestly without charging twice for AI-assisted work, and complying with the advertising rules. The opinion's single concrete disclosure requirement is narrow: a chatbot that communicates with clients must state that it is an AI program and not a lawyer or employee of the firm. The opinion does not require lawyers to disclose that AI was used in the work itself.
Source: Florida Bar Ethics Department Technology Packet (reprints Opinion 24-1)
Disclosure rules
Are Florida lawyers required to disclose AI use?
Florida's ethics opinion does not require a general disclosure of AI use. Its only disclosure requirement is that a client-facing AI chatbot must state that it is an AI program and not a lawyer.
A statewide court rule changed the landscape in 2026. The Florida Supreme Court's administrative order AOSC26-12, effective June 2026, requires attorneys to certify that the authorities they cite exist and are accurately referenced, and authorizes courts to sanction filers who cite cases that do not exist. Because the order is recent, read it directly before relying on its precise scope.
Source: Florida Supreme Court Administrative Order AOSC26-12 (official)
Sanctions on record
AI hallucination sanctions in Florida
Florida has a discipline matter on record. In In re Thomas Grant Neusom (M.D. Fla. 2024), the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida suspended an attorney for one year from that court's bar after he filed pleadings containing fabricated cases. He stated that he may have used AI but could not verify the citations. The cited violations included the duties of diligence and candor to the tribunal and the prohibition on misconduct.
Source: In re Thomas Grant Neusom (M.D. Fla.), court docket (CourtListener)
Competence duty
The competence rule and AI (Rule 4-1.1)
The competence duty in Florida is Rule 4-1.1 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. The Comment to the rule ties competence to an understanding of the benefits and risks of relevant technology, and it now refers to generative artificial intelligence directly. Opinion 24-1 reads this duty to require a lawyer to supervise and verify AI output rather than rely on it.
CLE requirements
Continuing legal education in Florida
Florida is notable for requiring technology CLE. Florida lawyers must complete at least 3 hours of approved technology continuing legal education within each three-year cycle, as part of the 30-hour total requirement. AI-focused programs can satisfy the technology requirement. Florida does not impose a separate AI-only CLE mandate.
How to stay compliant
A practical checklist for Florida lawyers
Florida's 2026 certification rule makes confirming that every cited case exists a hard requirement rather than a best practice.
Review the assigned judge's standing order and the court's local rules at the start of every matter. AI disclosure obligations generally sit at the court and judge level rather than in a single statewide rule.
Verify every citation and quotation before filing, and read the underlying authority. Most AI sanctions have resulted from citations the lawyer never personally verified.
Do not enter confidential client information into public AI tools without confirming how the tool handles data and, where there is material confidentiality risk, obtaining the client's informed consent.
Inform the client when AI use materially affects the matter, and honor any client instruction that limits AI use.
Bill only for time actually spent drafting prompts and reviewing output, not for time the tool saved.
Keep any required technology or AI continuing-education credit current, and treat AI competence as part of your duty under the competence rule.
When evaluating tools, look for citation grounding that ties output to verifiable authority, a vendor commitment not to train on client data, and audit trails. These reduce risk, but they do not replace the lawyer's own review.
Frequently asked
Florida AI rules: common questions
Legal AI rules in nearby states
Practising across state lines? Compare Florida’s rules with its neighbors.
This page is general information, not legal advice. Rules change, and the obligations that apply to your matter depend on your court, your judge, and your facts. Verify the current rules with the Florida state bar and the assigned court before you rely on anything here. Last verified June 2026.
Built for lawyers who have to verify everything
Irys grounds its output in verifiable authority, keeps client data out of training, and maintains a record of the work. See how it fits your practice.
Book a Demo