Connecticut (statewide): Connecticut Practice Book Section 4-9: Generative Artificial Int…

What the rule requires

Connecticut regulated attorney AI use through its Practice Book rather than through a bar ethics opinion. Note the reach: Sections 4-2 and 4-9 were adopted by the judges of the Superior Court, so they govern Superior Court filings. Supreme Court and Appellate Court matters fall under separate Practice Book chapters, and those chapters were amended three weeks later to carry the same duty (see the appellate counterpart below).

Section 4-9(b) carries the obligation:

“any person who uses generative AI in the creation or editing of any document filed with the court shall independently verify all citations, legal authorities or evidence produced by generative AI”

Non-compliance “may result in court-imposed sanctions, including, without limitation, the entry of a nonsuit or default judgment.” Nonsuit and default are the examples the rule names; its “without limitation” wording leaves other sanctions, including monetary ones, available to the court.

Four features that distinguish it

It reaches any person. Not “any attorney.” Self-represented parties carry the same verification duty, on the same terms.

There is no disclosure duty. Nothing in Section 4-9 requires a filer to state that AI was used. A firm that builds a disclosure block into its Connecticut templates is solving a problem this rule does not pose; what it asks for is verification, and evidence that verification happened.

Responsibility is placed solely on the filer. Section 4-9(d) forecloses the argument that a vendor’s output or a staff member’s error shifts the burden.

It names tools. Section 4-9(a) enumerates specific products including ChatGPT, Co-Counsel, Harvey, Ironclad, DeepSeek, and Grok. Naming vendors in rule text dates a rule quickly, and the enumeration should be read as illustrative of the category rather than as a closed list.

How it is enforced

Revised Section 4-2(b) is the mechanism: signing a filing certifies compliance with Section 4-9. That folds the verification duty into the signature block rather than leaving it as a free-standing obligation a filer might not connect to any particular act.

Effective-date trap

Most amendments published in the same Connecticut Law Journal notice take effect January 1, 2027. Sections 4-2 and 4-9 took effect on publication, June 23, 2026. A firm scanning that notice for a January date would conclude it had six months to prepare, when in fact the duty attached immediately.

Appellate counterpart

Amendments to Sections 60-4, 62-6, and 85-2 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, approved by the Appellate Court on June 23 and by the Supreme Court on June 30, 2026, took effect on publication in the Connecticut Law Journal on July 14, 2026. Section 60-4 gives generative AI the same meaning as in Section 4-9. Section 62-6(d) makes the signing of any appellate paper a certificate that the signer “has complied with the requirements of Section 4-7 regarding personal identifying information and Section 4-9 regarding generative AI.” Section 85-2 adds “[f]ailure to independently verify all citations and legal authorities produced by generative AI in compliance with Sections 4-9 and 62-6 (d)” to the actions subject to sanctions, which in the appellate courts include a filing bar for a definite period, a fine under General Statutes § 51-84, and costs and attorney’s fees to the opposing party. The courts waived the sixty-day pre-publication requirement of Section 86-1 for these three sections. See the appellate rules entry for the text.

Relationship to Connecticut bar guidance

There is still no Connecticut bar ethics opinion on attorney AI use. The CBA’s Generative AI Committee runs CLE programming but has published no written guidance. For a Connecticut firm, this rule is the operative filing-side authority, and ABA Formal Opinion 512 remains the persuasive ethics-side reference. See the Connecticut state entry for the ethics framework.

Primary source

Connecticut Law Journal, June 23, 2026, Practice Book amendments (rule text at pp. 14-16)

Connecticut Law Journal, July 14, 2026, Rules of Appellate Procedure amendments (Sections 60-4, 62-6, 85-2)