|
15 April 2026 (New York, NY) - Connecticut lawyers and pro se litigants could face case-ending sanctions for citation errors tied to the misuse of generative artificial intelligence under a new rule proposed by the state's attorney rules committee.
The Rules Committee of the Superior Court proposed a rule requiring lawyers and pro se parties to "independently verify all citations, legal authorities or evidence produced by generative A.I." amid a slate of practice book revisions the Connecticut Law Journal shared Tuesday, ahead of a May committee meeting:
"Due to the risk that generative A.I. can create inaccurate factual and legal information, including, without limitation, faulty citations to legal authority, fabricated quotations from such authority, and inaccurate or fabricated evidence, any person who uses generative A.I. in the creation or editing of any document filed with the court must verify the accuracy of AI-generated content".
Any erroneous citations or "hallucinations" created by artificial intelligence could give rise to sanctions that include, but are not limited to, default judgment or the entry of a nonsuit, under the proposed rule.
The rule would mark the first time the Connecticut Practice Book has been updated to include specific reference to artificial intelligence.
Under current practice book rules, every time a Connecticut lawyer signs a pleading, motion, objection or request, the signature certifies that the attorney has read the document and believes its contents to be well-supported.
The new rule, which would fall under the practice book's chapter on pleadings, goes hand-in-hand with the signing rule, together "expressly stat[ing] that the signer of any pleading, motion, objection or request certifies that they have complied with the generative A.I. obligations under this rule," according to commentary included alongside the proposed update.
Commentaries accompany some of the rules in Connecticut's attorney rule book, designed as "guides to interpretation" to support the text of the rules themselves, according to the Connecticut Practice Book.
Connecticut legal analysts say the language tracks similar language used by courts in Texas that are addressing the issue, plus formal and informal opinions of the American Bar Association on the duties to a tribunal that require lawyers to review AI outputs.
Comments from the public on the revisions will be accepted through April 29th, and a hearing on the proposed changes is set for May 4th.
Additionally, the U.S. District Court in Connecticut has issued a notice stating a "no-tolerance policy" for any briefing (AI-assisted or not) that includes fake citations or misstates the law, advising that attorneys exercise caution when using AI.
| 
