Palm Beach County legal AI compliance

The 15th Circuit AI Compliance Center

AI-Powered Consulting helps Palm Beach County law firms turn Administrative Order 2.109-4/26 into a practical disclosure, verification, and attorney signoff workflow.

Your firm has 5 days to go from exposed to covered. Book a Compliance Shield Audit.

In 30 minutes, you will know whether your current AI use creates disclosure, verification, or policy gaps.

5,000+ professionals trained on practical AI use
75+ companies supported across adoption and implementation
5 days to deliver the Compliance Shield Audit
Plain-English answer

What does the 15th Circuit AI order require?

Administrative Order 2.109-4/26 requires attorneys appearing before the Circuit and County Courts of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit to disclose certain generative AI use in court filings and certify independent verification of factual assertions, legal authority, citations, and conclusions.

The order was signed on April 10, 2026 and is listed by the 15th Judicial Circuit as not vacated. View the official 15th Circuit order listing.

This page explains what the order means, where firms get exposed, and what a compliant workflow should include. This resource is educational and workflow-focused. It is not legal advice.

The 3 obligations

The order is not just a disclosure rule. It is a workflow rule.

Most firms will not get in trouble because they used AI. The risk comes from using AI without a repeatable review, verification, and signoff process.

Disclose generative AI use.

If generative AI creates new content for a pleading, motion, memorandum, response, proposed order, or other court document, your firm needs a clear disclosure trigger.

Certify independent verification.

Your filing process needs a documented review step for factual assertions, legal authority, citations, and conclusions before anything reaches the signature block.

Keep attorney judgment in control.

AI-generated content remains the work product of the filing party. Your workflow must prove that human review did not happen casually or after the fact.

Disclosure boundary

What does and does not need to be disclosed?

The operational question is simple: did the tool create new content, or did it only help process, search, classify, flag, or check existing material?

Disclosure risk

Generative AI creating new content

Disclosure is triggered when generative AI creates new content in covered filing work.

  • Drafting arguments or filing language
  • Creating summaries that are inserted into filings
  • Generating legal analysis or proposed conclusions
  • Producing translated or interpreted language
  • Creating images, audio, video, or notes used in filings
Generally treated differently

Traditional AI and predefined tools

The order distinguishes generative AI from tools that perform specific, predefined tasks.

  • Spelling and grammar checks
  • Rule-based legal research tools
  • Search and retrieval tools
  • Sorting, classification, and flagging systems
  • Traditional tools such as Westlaw, LexisNexis, Justia, FindLaw, Cornell LII, and Florida Law Weekly as listed in the order

Where most firms are exposed.

Controlled Unclear Exposed
1 Attorneys use ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, or legal AI tools without a matter-level record.
2 Staff help prepare filing materials, but no one records whether generative AI created content.
3 Citations and factual assertions are checked informally, but no verification workflow exists.
Risk reduction

Your firm does not need a 40-page AI policy. It needs a workflow attorneys will actually follow.

Policies fail when they sit in a folder. Compliance improves when your team knows which tools are allowed, when disclosure is triggered, who verifies the output, and where the final signoff happens.

Your firm has 5 days to go from exposed to covered. Book a Compliance Shield Audit.

In 30 minutes, you will know whether your current AI use creates disclosure, verification, or policy gaps.

Compliant workflow blueprint

What “covered” should look like inside your firm.

A defensible AI process should make the correct behavior easy before a deadline, not hard after a filing gets questioned.

01 Tool approval Define allowed, restricted, and prohibited AI tools by role and use case.
02 Matter record Track whether generative AI was used and what work it supported.
03 Confidentiality screen Prevent privileged, client, or sensitive matter information from entering unsafe tools.
04 Verification pass Check facts, citations, authority, quotations, and conclusions against reliable sources.
05 Attorney signoff Confirm disclosure language, certification placement, and final attorney responsibility.
Free downloadable resource

AI Compliance Checklist for PBC Attorneys

A 2-page checklist for managing partners, firm administrators, legal operations leaders, and attorneys who want a practical starting point. No email required.

Disclosure trigger review Included
AI tool inventory prompts Included
Verification workflow questions Included
Policy gap checklist Included
Free PDF download. No email required. Use it to check whether your firm has the disclosure, verification, and policy steps covered before the next filing deadline.
Download the Free AI Compliance Checklist
Why it is ungated

Useful first. Commercial second.

Palm Beach County attorneys need a clear, local, plain-English resource on AO 2.109-4/26. This checklist is free because trust comes before the audit.

01 Use it to spot missing disclosure triggers.
02 Use it to pressure-test your verification steps.
03 Use it to start a policy conversation with your partners, administrator, or ethics counsel.
Need the workflow built for your firm? The Compliance Shield Audit turns this checklist into a firm-ready policy and verification process in 5 business days.
Book a Compliance Shield Audit

In 30 minutes, you will know whether your current AI use creates disclosure, verification, or policy gaps.

Compliance Shield Audit

Get your firm from exposed to covered in 5 business days.

The Compliance Shield Audit is a focused AI governance audit for Palm Beach County law firms. APC reviews your current AI use, identifies compliance gaps, drafts a practical AI governance policy, and builds a human-in-the-loop verification workflow your attorneys can follow.

01
AI Usage Inventory A clear view of which tools your attorneys and staff are using, how they are using them, and where disclosure may be triggered.
02
Compliance Gap Report A plain-English report showing where your current process may fall short under AO 2.109-4/26 and Florida Bar Opinion 24-1.
03
Draft AI Governance Policy A firm-ready policy your managing partner, administrator, ethics counsel, or executive committee can review.
04
Verification Workflow A step-by-step process for checking citations, factual assertions, legal authority, and conclusions before filing.
05
60-Minute Debrief A focused review with Matt Almassian so your leadership team knows what to fix first.
This is not legal advice.

This resource is for education and workflow planning. It does not provide legal advice, ethics advice, or an opinion on your firm’s compliance status. Your firm should consult qualified legal ethics counsel when interpreting court orders, Florida Bar rules, or specific client matters.

FAQ

Questions Palm Beach County law firms are asking.

These answers are written for clarity, not legal opinion. Use them to identify what your firm needs to verify internally.

It requires attorneys and self-represented litigants appearing before the Circuit and County Courts of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit to disclose certain generative AI use in court filings and certify that factual assertions, legal authority, citations, and conclusions have been independently reviewed and verified.
No. The order distinguishes generative AI from traditional AI. Generative AI use must be disclosed when it creates new content for covered filings. Traditional AI used for predefined tasks, such as certain rule-based research, sorting, classification, spelling, or grammar checks, is treated differently.
The order states that certification should be included at the conclusion of the filing or immediately above the signature block. Your firm should confirm the preferred language and placement with qualified legal ethics counsel.
The order lists examples of generative AI programs including Harvey AI, Lexis+AI, AI.Law, Co-Counsel by Thomson Reuters, Westlaw drafting assistant, ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, and Claude AI.
Possible consequences may include striking the filing, denial of requested relief, monetary sanctions, contempt proceedings, referral to The Florida Bar, or other sanctions deemed appropriate by the Court.
Florida Bar Opinion 24-1 addresses broader ethical duties when lawyers use generative AI, including confidentiality, competence, accuracy, billing, advertising, technology competence, and oversight. View Florida Bar Opinion 24-1.
Potentially, but not casually. The firm should evaluate data retention, data sharing, self-learning policies, confidentiality risks, allowed use cases, verification steps, and attorney supervision before attorneys or staff use any generative AI tool with client or matter information.
At minimum, it should include approved tools, prohibited uses, confidentiality rules, disclosure triggers, verification steps, certification procedures, attorney supervision requirements, staff training requirements, and a process for updating the policy as court guidance and technology change.
Founder-led next step

The court mandated human oversight. APC gives your firm the workflow to prove it.

Your team does not need another AI memo. Your team needs an approved tool list, disclosure trigger, verification workflow, and attorney signoff process your people can follow before the next filing deadline.

Book a Compliance Shield Audit.

In 30 minutes, you will know whether your current AI use creates disclosure, verification, or policy gaps.