The statute number looks right. The chapter exists. But the section was repealed three years ago.
When AI hallucinates a case citation, at least you can search for it and discover it doesn't exist. Statute errors are harder to catch because the citations look almost right. The chapter is real. The format is perfect. But the specific section number either doesn't exist, was repealed, or belongs to a completely different area of law than what you're arguing.
Florida has 637 active chapters containing over 24,800 individual sections. That's a lot of room for AI to get creative. And unlike case law, where a fabricated citation at least fails a basic existence check, a wrong statute citation can slip past anyone who doesn't have the complete index memorized.
Invented section numbers - AI generates a citation like Fla. Stat. § 83.295 because it knows Chapter 83 is landlord-tenant law. But section 83.295 doesn't exist. The chapter jumps from § 83.291 to § 83.40. There is no way to know that without checking every section against the actual index.
Wrong chapter, right topic - AI cites § 718.303 (condominium disputes) when your case involves a homeowners' association governed by Chapter 720. Both deal with community associations. Both involve assessment disputes. But citing the wrong chapter means citing law that doesn't apply to your client's legal structure.
Part I vs. Part II confusion - Chapter 83 has two distinct parts: Part I covers nonresidential tenancies (§§ 83.001-83.251) and Part II covers residential tenancies (§§ 83.40-83.683). AI routinely cites residential statutes in commercial lease disputes and vice versa. Both parts are "landlord-tenant law," but they impose completely different rights and obligations.
Repealed or renumbered sections - Florida periodically reorganizes its statutes. Sections get repealed, transferred, or renumbered. AI models trained on older legal texts will cite section numbers that no longer exist in the current code.
Real example from our testing: ChatGPT cited Fla. Stat. § 48.081 (service of process on domestic corporations) in a motion involving an individual defendant. The statute is real. The citation format is perfect. But it governs service on corporations, not individuals. That distinction could have resulted in a defective service ruling if filed unchecked.
You could look up each statute citation on the Florida Senate's website. But that means manually navigating to each chapter, scrolling through the table of contents, and confirming that the specific section exists. For a filing with 8-10 statute citations, that's 30-45 minutes of tedious cross-referencing.
Most people don't do it. They see that the chapter number looks right, that the topic seems related, and they move on. That's exactly how wrong statutes end up in filed documents.
ADP doesn't guess. Every statute citation in your document is checked against the complete 2025 Florida Statutes index - all 637 chapters, 24,800+ sections, and 745 part divisions - scraped directly from flsenate.gov.
The verification is section-level, not just chapter-level. ADP knows that § 83.295 doesn't exist even though Chapter 83 does. It knows that § 83.49 is in Part II (residential) and § 83.11 is in Part I (nonresidential). It knows the catchline for every section, so it can flag when a "security deposit" statute is cited in a case that has nothing to do with deposits.
When ADP's Verification Report flags a statute, it tells you exactly what's wrong: section doesn't exist, chapter doesn't match, or the section's subject matter doesn't align with your document's legal context.
ADP's Deep Analysis takes statute verification further. Multiple independent AI models are given the section's actual catchline, the chapter title, and the part division from the official index. They independently assess whether the cited statute supports the legal argument it's being used for - not just whether it exists, but whether it applies.
This catches the subtlest errors: a statute that exists, that's in the right chapter, that's even about the right general topic, but that governs a different type of party or a different procedural context than your case requires.
