This week in legal AI safety: Florida orders an AI-free response; Ireland commencement confirmed

The 16 September update covers a Florida show-cause order, Ireland’s commencement correction, California’s agentic-AI guidance, US court rules and two vendors’ availability claims.

Incidents

Florida requires an AI-free show-cause response

Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal gave counsel ten days to explain, without using AI, why sanctions including a Florida Bar referral should not issue in Lisandrillo v. Palozzi, according to its 16 September opinion, page 15. The court suspected AI-generated components but expressly distinguished the case from false-citation cases; our incident record records a show-cause order, not an imposed sanction. AI authorship remained a suspicion.

Regulator watch

Ireland’s commencement date was 31 July

Ireland’s S.I. No. 403/2026, article 2 commenced the Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Act 2026 on 31 July, with a narrow exception: paragraphs (a) and (e) of the definition of “applicable market surveillance authority” in section 78. The Irish regulation record, corrected in the 16 September update, therefore distinguishes the Act’s commencement from those two excluded parts of the definition rather than describing the whole Act as awaiting commencement. This is not a new September commencement.

California draws a supervision boundary for agentic AI

The State Bar of California’s 2026 practical guidance, page 9, says lawyers must not permit AI systems to file documents, communicate with courts or make representations on their behalf autonomously. The 2023–2026 comparison published on 16 September explains the replacement guidance’s treatment of agentic AI, including meaningful lawyer supervision of substantive legal work. It applies existing professional duties.

Fuentes’s current order centres on personal review

Magistrate Judge Gabriel Fuentes’s current civil standing order, page 17, in the Northern District of Illinois, says filers’ Rule 11 certificates represent that they personally read and analysed every cited authority and checked its existence. Its AI section contains no AI-use or tool-name disclosure requirement, as recorded in the regulation entry checked on 16 September; that does not establish when the earlier disclosure language disappeared. The current text is the operative comparison.

The US inventory is not 268 binding orders

Our US court-AI report, revised on 16 September, counts 268 US federal and state instruments, of which 215 remain marked unverified in that frozen inventory. The distinction matters: the collection includes the Fifth Circuit’s proposed certification rule, whose official rejection notice says the court decided not to adopt a special AI drafting rule and instead reminded filers of existing accuracy duties. An inventory row is not proof of a current obligation.

Vendor accountability

Checkbox announces early access, not a full launch

Checkbox’s 16 September announcement describes First Pass as an agent for reviewing contracts, invoices and incoming legal requests, with enhanced capabilities available through early access. The directory entry records beta status; the vendor schedules additional capabilities and a broader launch for the first quarter of 2027. Availability does not establish review accuracy.

Consilio’s connector dates to May

Consilio’s 12 May announcement describes an Aurora connector for Claude, with AI Investigate as its first capability and access authenticated through Consilio ID. The Aurora directory entry was reverified on 16 September, but that is a directory update, not a September product launch; Consilio’s claim that queries do not require moving, duplicating or exporting client data remains a vendor statement rather than an independent security finding.

Stat of the week

148 incident records were marked verified in the frozen 16 September dataset, counted from each YAML record’s status field. The public tracker also includes 11 unverified records; 476 provisional rows are excluded from its public count. These are distinct cohorts.

The additions and updates below count unique public record files added or modified between 14 and 20 September, including source and verification-date housekeeping, not newly decided cases. The outcome count measures populated regulatory-outcome fields, which include pending referrals rather than only final sanctions.

Tracker: 159 public incident records worldwide across 15 jurisdictions, 2 added and 15 updated in the 14–20 September window, 50 regulatory-outcome fields populated, as of the frozen 16 September 2026 baseline.

Sources

External sources retrieved 21 September 2026:

• Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal, Lisandrillo v. Palozzi, opinion of 16 September 2026, pp. 1–2 and 15 (archived copy).
• Irish Statute Book, S.I. No. 403/2026, article 2.
• State Bar of California, 2026 Practical Guidance, pp. 1–2 and 9.
• Northern District of Illinois, Magistrate Judge Fuentes’s Standing Order for Civil Cases, p. 17, image-based PDF (archived copy).
• Fifth Circuit, Court Decision on Proposed Rule, p. 1 (archived copy).
• Checkbox, First Pass announcement, 16 September 2026.
• Consilio, Aurora/Claude connector announcement, 12 May 2026.

Internal references: Lisandrillo incident; Ireland regulation; California guidance comparison; Fuentes regulation; US court-AI inventory; Checkbox directory entry; Consilio directory entry; public tracker.

Tracker and US-inventory figures use the frozen 16 September 2026 dataset at git commit e19a28391a0c68195fdca5cc1619149dd0dc43ac; additions and updates count unique public incident files in that commit’s history within 14–20 September, not newly decided cases.