14 July 2026; start date not confirmedBinding ruleConnecticut Supreme Court and Appellate Court (Chief Clerk Appellate)July 14, 2026Last checked 31 October 2026
Jurisdiction
Connecticut: AI rules for lawyers
Connecticut, United States · Switch state
- United States federal courts
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- California
- Colorado
- Delaware
- District of Columbia
- Florida
- Georgia
- Hawaii
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
What this means for lawyers
In Connecticut state courts, if you use generative AI to create or edit anything you file, you must independently verify every citation, legal authority and piece of evidence it produced. This has applied in the Superior Court since 23 June 2026 under Practice Book §4-9, and in the Supreme and Appellate Courts since 14 July 2026 under §§62-6(d) and 85-2(11).
Signing or filing a document certifies that you complied with §4-9. Sanctions for unverified AI output range from fines, costs and fee awards, and bans on filing, up to nonsuit or default judgment.
In the federal District of Connecticut, verify every AI-generated citation and proposition. The court says unverified AI output engages Rule 11, states a no-tolerance policy for hallucinated or severely misstated law, and says sanctions will often follow absent reasonable excuse.
As at .
Telling the court and the client
- Tell the courtUnclear
Court disclosure: no requirement to disclose AI use was found. In state courts, signing or filing a document certifies that you verified AI output under §4-9. The D. Conn. notice requires verification only. Client disclosure/consent: no Connecticut rule found.
- Tell the clientUnclear
Same basis and sources as above.
What changed in Connecticut in the last 12 months
- DatedRules of Appellate Procedure amendments (Connecticut Law Journal, July 14, 2026): Sections 60-4, 62-6(d) and 85-2(11) on generative AI
- DatedPractice Book Amendments, Superior Court Rules (Connecticut Law Journal, June 23, 2026): new Section 4-9, Generative Artificial Intelligence ("Generative AI") Compliance, and revised Section 4-2
AI instruments
Courts and tribunals
23 June 2026; start date not confirmedBinding ruleConnecticut Judicial Branch (Judges of the Superior Court; Rules Committee of the Superior Court)June 23, 2026 (Connecticut Law Journal); adopted June 11, 2026Last checked 31 October 2026
12 September 2025; start date not confirmedPractice noteUnited States District Court, District of Connecticut (Clerk of Court)9/12/25Last checked 31 October 2026
Legislation
5/27/2026 (signed by the Governor); start date not confirmedSecondaryConnecticut General Assembly5/27/2026 (signed by the Governor)Last checked 31 October 2026
Sources
- Connecticut Supreme Court and Appellate Court (Chief Clerk Appellate): Rules of Appellate Procedure amendments (Connecticut Law Journal, July 14, 2026): Sections 60-4, 62-6(d) and 85-2(11) on generative AI · last checked
- Connecticut Judicial Branch (Judges of the Superior Court; Rules Committee of the Superior Court): Practice Book Amendments, Superior Court Rules (Connecticut Law Journal, June 23, 2026): new Section 4-9, Generative Artificial Intelligence ("Generative AI") Compliance, and revised Section 4-2 · last checked
- United States District Court, District of Connecticut (Clerk of Court): Notice to Counsel and Litigants Regarding AI-Assisted Research · last checked
- Connecticut General Assembly: Public Act 26-15 (Substitute S.B. No. 5, 2026), An Act Concerning Online Safety · last checked
- Connecticut Bar Association · last checked
Court AI rule changes + new tools, monthly
One email a month when a court changes its AI practice note or a tool is added to the catalogue. Your address is kept for that note. See Privacy.
Before the work starts
- Define the matter
Confirm the client’s instructions, jurisdiction, intended output and the information available before dividing the work.
- Confirm the source material
Check the work against the original records and identify omissions, contradictions and remaining information.
- Record review and approval
Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.
- Jurisdiction
Apply this guidance to the actual matter and jurisdiction. Confirm current requirements before relying on an example.
Limits on AI assistance
- Confirm firm, client and applicable court or professional restrictions before using any AI feature.