AI Rules for Court Filings in 2026: What Florida, New York, and Connecticut Require

TL;DR:Three states put statewide AI rules for court filings in place between June and July 2026. Florida's rule makes every signer vouch that cited authorities exist and are cited correctly, and it bars local courts from adding their own AI rules. New York allows AI use and leaves stricter rules to individual courts. Connecticut requires anyone who uses AI to create or edit a filing to verify what the AI produced. None of them bans AI. All of them put the duty on the person who signs.

For two years, rules on AI in court filings came mostly from individual judges. One courtroom required a disclosure form. The next required nothing. In the summer of 2026, three states moved to statewide rules. They take different approaches, but they point the same direction.

What does Florida's rule require?

On May 28, 2026, the Florida Supreme Court amended Rule 2.515(d)(2) of the Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration, in case No. SC2026-0673. The change took effect June 15, 2026.

The rule already treated a signature on a court filing as a set of promises. The amendment adds one more. The signer now represents that the legal authorities cited in the filing "exist and are accurately cited." It applies to lawyers and to people representing themselves.

Courts may impose sanctions for a filing that does not match that promise. According to a June 2026 Jones Day summary, the options include a reprimand, contempt, striking the filing, dismissal, costs, and attorney's fees, after notice and a chance to be heard.

The rule does not mention AI as the cause. A wrong citation is a problem whether a person or a program produced it. It also does not require anyone to disclose that they used AI.

Bloomberg Law reported that the court took public comments on the rule through August 11, 2026. This article describes the rule as adopted.

Can a Florida court add its own AI rules?

No. The same day, the court issued an administrative order, AOSC26-12. It said several circuits had adopted their own AI disclosure and certification orders, creating a patchwork across the state.

The order directs that courts may not impose AI disclosure or certification requirements through local orders, court policies, judicial practices, or other means. Courts should rely on the amended rule and its sanction power instead.

Courts can still educate people about the benefits and risks of AI and warn them about sanctions for inaccurate filings. They can also set rules for their own employees' use of AI.

What does New York's rule require?

New York's rule is Part 161 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator, 22 NYCRR Part 161, effective June 1, 2026. It applies to all courts in New York's Unified Court System, civil and criminal.

Part 161 takes a permissive approach. It says lawyers and parties should not be barred from using AI to prepare court papers, as long as they meet the duties that already apply to every filing. Because those duties apply whether or not AI was used, the rule says filers should not be required to disclose AI use. Those existing duties include New York's rule against frivolous filings (22 NYCRR 130-1.1) and, for lawyers, the Rules of Professional Conduct, such as the duty of candor in Rule 3.3.

The stricter piece is optional. Part 161 lets each court decide whether to adopt its own AI rule and encourages courts that do to use a model rule in Appendix A. Under that model rule, any lawyer or party who uses an AI tool to prepare a paper must "carefully review the paper and independently ensure that it contains no fabricated or fictitious cases, statutes, or other material." Signing the paper certifies that the review happened.

So in New York, the answer depends on the courtroom. The statewide floor is your existing duties. A particular judge or court may add the model rule on top.

What does Connecticut's rule require?

Connecticut changed its Practice Book, the rules for its courts. The Connecticut Supreme Court summarized the changes in a July 31, 2026 sanctions order:

• Section 4-9 (b), effective June 23, 2026, for the trial courts, requires anyone who uses generative AI in creating or editing a court filing to independently verify all citations, legal authorities, or evidence the AI produced.
• Section 4-2 (b), same date, makes signing a filing a certification that the signer complied with section 4-9.
• Sections 62-6 (d) and 85-2 (11), effective July 14, 2026, bring the same signing rule to appeals and make failure to comply sanctionable.

Two words stand out. "Editing" means the rule covers AI used only to polish text, not just AI used for research. "Evidence" means the duty reaches past case law.

The editing point is not theoretical. In the case where the court described these rules, a lawyer checked his citations, then ran the drafts through ChatGPT to improve the writing. The tool changed or added about seven citations, and he was sanctioned. That case is covered in the companion post on Connecticut's AI editing sanction.

How do the three rules compare?

Does the rule ban AI? No, in all three states.

Does it require you to disclose AI use? Florida: no, and local courts may not require it. New York: no. The statewide rule says filers should not be required to disclose AI use, and the model rule asks for review, not disclosure. Connecticut: the rule as the Supreme Court described it centers on verification. Check the rule text for anything more.

Who carries the duty? Florida: every signer, lawyer or not. New York: attorneys and parties. Connecticut: anyone who uses generative AI on a filing.

What triggers it? Florida: any filing with cited authorities, however it was written. New York model rule: use of an AI tool to prepare a paper. Connecticut: use of generative AI to create or edit a filing.

What does the signature mean?In all three, signing is the moment the duty attaches. Florida's signer represents the authorities are real and correctly cited. Under New York's model rule and Connecticut's rule, signing certifies the review was done.

What about federal courts?

These are state court rules. They do not govern federal courts. In federal court, the main rule is still Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a reasonable inquiry before filing, plus any standing orders from individual judges. The Second Circuit held in Park v. Kim (2024) that failing to check AI-generated citations violated Rule 11. If you file in federal court, check the assigned judge's standing orders.

What do these rules mean in practice?

The details differ. The working habit they call for is the same.

Check every citation against the source. Pull each case, statute, or rule and confirm it exists and says what the filing claims.

Check after the last edit.Connecticut's rule names editing for a reason. Any tool that touches the text after the check can change a citation.

Know your court's rules.In Florida, the statewide rule is the whole picture for local AI rules. In New York, look for a court or judge's own rule. In federal court, look for standing orders.

Do not count on intent. None of these rules asks whether the signer meant to mislead. The question is whether the citation is right.

For a step-by-step approach to building that check, see a framework for verifying AI-generated legal content. For the earlier history of AI sanctions that led to these rules, see the post on Mata and the regulatory regime that followed.

Rules in this area are changing quickly, and other states are considering their own. This article reflects the rules as of October 2026.