AI in the Courtroom: What a Suspected Deepfake Means for Florida Lawyers and Clients

When a suspected deepfake appears during a Miami-Dade virtual hearing, artificial intelligence stops being theoretical. It becomes an issue of evidence, ethics, and accountability.

That was the focus of a recent investigative report by WSVN 7News titled “AI in the courtroom? Suspected deepfake raises legal concerns among experts.” In the segment, investigative reporter Courtney Allen interviewed Alex Almazan, Managing Partner of Almazan Law, regarding how AI-generated content may begin to impact court proceedings across Florida.

In the reported hearing, a supposed cyber expert appeared on Zoom. The video and audio appeared misaligned. The witness was unable to provide identification when requested. The judge terminated the proceeding and reportedly noted “AI?” in the court paperwork.

The incident highlights a developing reality: Courts must now evaluate not only what evidence shows — but whether it is real at all.

Deepfakes and AI Evidence: A Growing Legal Challenge

Generative AI tools can now create convincing video, audio, and written content. So-called “deepfakes” can simulate individuals saying or doing things they never did.

This presents two distinct risks in litigation:

1. Fabricated Evidence Entering the Record

AI-generated images, audio, witness statements, or citations may appear authentic but lack reliability. Under Florida’s evidence rules, courts must assess authenticity, relevance, and admissibility. When digital manipulation becomes harder to detect, evidentiary disputes become more complex.

2. Authentic Evidence Being Dismissed as Fake

If jurors assume that “anything can be AI,” legitimate recordings may lose persuasive value. As legal scholars have noted, widespread skepticism about digital media could erode confidence in otherwise admissible evidence.

The American Bar Association has warned that AI and deepfakes may disrupt traditional evidentiary foundations and judicial processes.

For Florida litigants, the message is clear: Evidence authentication will require greater scrutiny, not less.

How Florida Is Responding to AI in Legal Practice

Florida has taken proactive steps to clarify lawyers’ ethical obligations when using generative AI.

Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1

The Florida Bar issued Ethics Opinion 24-1: Lawyer’s Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence.

The opinion confirms:

• Lawyers may use generative AI.
• Lawyers remain fully responsible for all work product.
• Existing Rules of Professional Conduct apply without exception.

Key areas addressed include:

• Competence (Rule 1.1)
• Confidentiality (Rule 1.6)
• Reasonable Fees (Rule 1.5)
• Supervision of Nonlawyer Assistance (Rule 5.3)
• Advertising and Communications (Rules 7.1–7.3)

The opinion emphasizes:

• Lawyers must independently verify AI-generated research and citations.
• Client confidential information must be protected when using third-party tools.
• Lawyers may not charge unreasonable fees for AI-assisted work.
• AI output must be supervised as though it were work performed by a nonlawyer assistant.

In short: AI may assist. It may not replace professional judgment.

Miami-Dade Administrative Order 26-04: Mandatory AI Disclosure

The Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida issued Administrative Order 26-04, requiring disclosure when generative AI is used in court filings.

Under this order:

• Parties must disclose on the face of a filing if generative AI was used in its preparation.
• The filing must certify that all factual assertions and legal authorities were independently reviewed and verified.
• Fictitious or “hallucinated” citations are prohibited.
• Failure to comply may result in sanctions, including striking filings or referral to The Florida Bar.

This order reflects a broader judicial principle:

Transparency and verification are mandatory when AI intersects with court records.

Practical Steps Florida Lawyers Should Consider

As AI tools become more common, law firms handling matters in Miami and throughout Florida should consider structured safeguards, including:

1. Internal AI Policies: Define approved tools, confidentiality protocols, verification standards, and supervision requirements.

2. Enhanced Evidence Authentication: Review metadata, digital signatures, source history, and—when appropriate—consult forensic specialists when digital evidence is disputed.

3. Ongoing Education: Attorneys and staff should remain informed regarding AI limitations, hallucination risks, and evolving ethical guidance.

4. Monitoring Administrative Orders: Local and statewide requirements may continue to evolve as courts gain experience addressing AI-related disputes.

What This Means for Clients

For individuals and businesses involved in litigation:

• Ask how your legal team evaluates digital evidence.
• Expect verification of AI-assisted research.
• Confirm that confidential information is safeguarded.
• Understand that courts are adapting in real time.

AI is not inherently problematic. Unverified AI is.

Used responsibly, technology can improve efficiency while maintaining evidentiary integrity. Used carelessly, it risks sanctions, ethical violations, or damage to credibility before the court.

A Turning Point for the Legal Profession

The suspected deepfake in a Miami-Dade hearing is not simply a viral headline. It represents a structural shift in how courts must approach authenticity and truth.

Florida’s Ethics Opinion 24-1 and Administrative Order 26-04 demonstrate that the state’s legal system is responding with accountability measures rather than prohibition.

The profession is not banning AI. It requires lawyers to own it.

Sources

• WSVN 7News – AI in the courtroom? Suspected deepfake raises legal concerns among experts
• The Florida Bar – Ethics Opinion 24-1: Lawyer’s Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence
• Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida – Administrative Order 26-04
• American Bar Association – AI and Deepfakes Guidance and Reporting