Tennessee Edition
Welcome to Issue 002 of The Bench & Bar AI Brief, Tennessee Edition.
Last week, the point was simple: AI citation verification is becoming a professional duty. This week, the pattern is sharper. Courts and bars are starting to write that duty into rules, standing orders, ethics opinions, and discipline.
The clearest court-rule signal comes from Florida. On May 28, 2026, the Florida Supreme Court amended Rule 2.515(d)(2) to require the signer of a Florida court filing to represent that the legal authorities identified in the filing exist and are accurately cited. The amendments take effect June 15, 2026. The court tied the rule to a practical AI problem: generative AI tools can produce text and citations that look plausible but are inaccurate.
The federal trial-court signal comes from Kansas. The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas lists Standing Order 26-01, In re: Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Preparing Court Filings. The order says courts are seeing filings with false statements of fact or law, including fabricated or incorrect legal citations. It reminds lawyers, parties, and self-represented litigants that they remain responsible for filings and must review and verify AI-assisted content. If the court has reason to believe that did not happen, the order lists possible consequences, including striking filings, monetary sanctions, disciplinary referral, disqualification, filing restrictions, or dismissal.
The ethics question is getting sharper too. The Virginia State Bar is seeking comment on proposed Legal Ethics Opinion 1902, which asks what duties a lawyer may have when opposing counsel files AI-hallucinated material. The proposal does not merely ask whether the filing lawyer made a mistake. It asks whether the opposing lawyer's duties of diligence and competence may require identifying misstatements of law or fact and advising the court. It also addresses when a lawyer may have to report opposing counsel.
Tennessee has its own cautionary example. The Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility publicly censured Matthew Brett Reeves after it found that he personally used AI to add citations to two motions filed for a client in federal court in Alabama, that the citations were fabricated, and that he took no action to check their accuracy. The BPR stated the conduct violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 3.2, and 8.4.
California points to the longer-term regulatory trend. The State Bar of California has proposed AI-related amendments to rules on competence, communication, confidentiality, candor to the tribunal, supervisory duties, and nonlawyer-assistant duties. One proposed candor change would clarify the duty to verify that cited authorities exist and are accurate, including authorities generated or assisted by AI or other technology.