--- title: "Connecticut: AI rules for lawyers" url: "https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/connecticut" type: "jurisdiction" site: "AI Law Framework" id: "US-CT" kind: "state" country: "US" parent: "United States" last_checked: "2026-10-31" as_of: "2026-10-31" last_reviewed: "2026-11-03" --- # Connecticut: AI rules for lawyers > Connecticut: court and regulator AI instruments and the tasks that change here. Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/connecticut Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt ## 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 31 October 2026. ## Telling the court and the client **Tell the court:** Unclear 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. - [Practice Book Amendments, Superior Court Rules (Conn. Law Journal, 23 June 2026; adopted 11 June 2026)](https://www.jud.ct.gov/legalresources/Docs/LJDocs/Misc/2026/26/pblj_8752.pdf) - [Rules of Appellate Procedure amendments (Conn. Law Journal, 14 July 2026)](https://www.jud.ct.gov/LegalResources/Docs/LJDocs/Misc/2026/29/pblj_8803.pdf) - [Notice to Counsel and Litigants Regarding AI-Assisted Research](https://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Notice-to-Counsel-and-Litigants-Regarding-AI.pdf) **Tell the client:** Unclear Same basis and sources as above. ## Last checked Last checked 31 October 2026. ## What changed in Connecticut in the last 12 months - 14 July 2026 · Dated: [Rules of Appellate Procedure amendments (Connecticut Law Journal, July 14, 2026): Sections 60-4, 62-6(d) and 85-2(11) on generative AI](#ai-rule-jr-us-ct-appellate-rules-2026-gen-ai) - 23 June 2026 · Dated: [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](#ai-rule-jr-us-ct-superior-court-pb-2026-revisions) ## AI instruments ### Courts and tribunals #### Rules of Appellate Procedure amendments (Connecticut Law Journal, July 14, 2026): Sections 60-4, 62-6(d) and 85-2(11) on generative AI - Type: Court rule or order · Court rule - Issuer: Connecticut Supreme Court and Appellate Court (Chief Clerk Appellate) - Date on page: July 14, 2026 - Effective date: 14 July 2026 - Status: 14 July 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.jud.ct.gov/LegalResources/Docs/LJDocs/Misc/2026/29/pblj_8803.pdf Connecticut's appellate courts applied the Superior Court's generative AI rule to appeals. Section 60-4 adopts the Section 4-9 definition of generative AI. New Section 62-6(d) says signing any paper certifies that the signer has complied with Section 4-9 on generative AI. New Section 85-2(11) makes failing to independently verify all citations and legal authorities produced by generative AI, as Sections 4-9 and 62-6(d) require, a ground for sanctions. Sanctions can include a bar on appearing or filing for a period, a fine, costs and the other side's attorney's fees, and apply to counsel and self-represented parties. Key points: - Applies in the Connecticut Supreme Court and Appellate Court. - Section 62-6(d): signing any paper certifies compliance with Section 4-9 (generative AI verification). - Section 85-2(11): failure to verify AI-produced citations and authorities is sanctionable (including fines, filing bans, costs and attorney's fees). - No separate AI-use disclosure requirement. - In force since July 14, 2026; the courts waived the usual 60-day pre-publication period for these sections. #### 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 - Type: Court rule or order · Court rule - Issuer: Connecticut Judicial Branch (Judges of the Superior Court; Rules Committee of the Superior Court) - Date on page: June 23, 2026 (Connecticut Law Journal); adopted June 11, 2026 - Effective date: 23 June 2026 - Status: 23 June 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.jud.ct.gov/legalresources/Docs/LJDocs/Misc/2026/26/pblj_8752.pdf The Superior Court judges adopted a new Practice Book Section 4-9 on generative AI, in force since June 23, 2026. Anyone who uses generative AI to create or edit a document filed with the court must independently verify all citations, legal authorities and evidence the AI produced; failure may lead to court-imposed sanctions, including nonsuit or default judgment. By filing, a person represents that they have reviewed the rule and made good faith, diligent efforts to comply with it, the other rules of practice, the Rules of Professional Conduct and any Connecticut law on AI use. Responsibility rests solely with the filer; the court and clerk need not check compliance. Section 4-2(b) now says signing a pleading, motion, objection or request certifies compliance with Section 4-9. The rule defines generative AI broadly and names tools such as ChatGPT, CoCounsel, Harvey and Grok. Key points: - Section 4-9(b): anyone using generative AI to create or edit a court filing must independently verify all citations, legal authorities or evidence it produced. - Sanctions for failure may include nonsuit or default judgment. - Section 4-9(c) and 4-2(b): filing or signing certifies good faith compliance with Section 4-9; there is no separate requirement to disclose AI use. - Section 4-9(d): compliance is solely the filer's responsibility; the court and clerk do not review for it. - Effective June 23, 2026 (on publication), ahead of the other June 11, 2026 amendments, which take effect January 1, 2027. #### Notice to Counsel and Litigants Regarding AI-Assisted Research - Type: Court policy - Issuer: United States District Court, District of Connecticut (Clerk of Court) - Date on page: 9/12/25 - Effective date: 12 September 2025 - Status: 12 September 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Notice-to-Counsel-and-Litigants-Regarding-AI.pdf A one-page notice from the federal District Court in Connecticut, signed by the Clerk of Court. It tells attorneys and self-represented litigants to take great care before submitting AI-generated language, and says using AI without verifying its output, like any other poor research method, implicates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The court has a no-tolerance policy for briefing, AI-assisted or not, that hallucinates legal propositions or severely misstates the law, and such filings will often lead to sanctions absent reasonable excuse. It does not impose a disclosure requirement. Key points: - Applies to attorneys and pro se litigants filing in the District of Connecticut (federal court). - Treats unverified AI output as a Rule 11 issue, like any other poor research method. - States a no-tolerance policy for hallucinated or severely misstated law; such filings will often result in sanctions absent reasonable excuse. - No AI disclosure or certification requirement appears in the notice. ### Legislation #### Public Act 26-15 (Substitute S.B. No. 5, 2026), An Act Concerning Online Safety - Type: Legislation - Issuer: Connecticut General Assembly - Date on page: 5/27/2026 (signed by the Governor) - Effective date: Not stated - Status: 5/27/2026 (signed by the Governor); start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&which_year=2026&bill_num=5 A broad 2026 Connecticut law on AI and online safety, signed on May 27, 2026. Its statement of purpose lists AI requirements including consumer disclosures by subscription AI providers, duties for frontier model developers, detectability of synthetic content, a rule that certain uses of automated employment decision processes are unlawful discrimination, and a state AI Policy Office. It is not aimed at lawyers. Only the bill status page and statement of purpose were read; the Act's text, section-by-section effective dates and any effect on law firms (for example as employers using automated hiring tools) were not checked. Key points: - Signed by the Governor 5/27/2026 as Public Act 26-15. - General AI law; no lawyer-specific provisions identified from the statement of purpose. - May matter to law firms as employers (automated employment-related decision processes) and as users of AI products; check the Act text. - Effective dates not verified. Existence, number, title, signing date and statement of purpose confirmed from the official bill status page; Act text and effective dates not read. ## 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](https://www.jud.ct.gov/LegalResources/Docs/LJDocs/Misc/2026/29/pblj_8803.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - 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](https://www.jud.ct.gov/legalresources/Docs/LJDocs/Misc/2026/26/pblj_8752.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - United States District Court, District of Connecticut (Clerk of Court): [Notice to Counsel and Litigants Regarding AI-Assisted Research](https://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Notice-to-Counsel-and-Litigants-Regarding-AI.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Connecticut General Assembly: [Public Act 26-15 (Substitute S.B. No. 5, 2026), An Act Concerning Online Safety](https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&which_year=2026&bill_num=5) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Connecticut Bar Association](https://www.ctbar.org/events-education/events/event/2026/10/08/default-calendar/the-ethical-use-of-ai-in-the-law-firm-edu261008b-2082598) · last checked 31 October 2026 ## Key facts - Kind: State - Task versions written for this jurisdiction: 0 - AI instruments recorded: 4 *Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*