What does D. Conn.'s AI court instrument provide?

This instrument imposes no AI-specific obligation on attorney filings: it is in force but adds no disclosure, verification, or use restriction beyond existing rules, and any duties it restates (Rule 11, professional conduct rules) already apply. It provides: All parties are on notice that the Court has a no-tolerance policy for any briefing (AI-assisted or not) that hallucinates legal propositions or otherwise severely misstates the law. Such filings will often result in sanctions absent reasonable excuse.

Does this order require attorneys to disclose AI use?

No. This instrument imposes no AI-specific disclosure or verification duty on attorney filings beyond existing rules, though it recommends verifying AI-generated content before filing; any disclosure or verification it records is a recommendation, a duty of its other addressees, or a restatement of duties that already apply.

What are the consequences for attorneys who violate this order?

This instrument imposes no independent obligation on attorney filings, so it creates no consequences of its own for attorneys; any consequences it mentions arise under the existing rules it restates. See the items listed on this page.

D. Conn.: D. Conn. Notice to Counsel and Litigants Regarding AI-Assisted Research

Issued by Dinah Milton Kinney, Clerk of Court · U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut

active

Verified September 30, 2026

Citation: D. Conn. Notice to Counsel and Litigants Regarding AI-Assisted Research
Order date: September 12, 2025

Status and scope

No AI-specific filing obligation: in force, but it imposes no disclosure, verification, or use restriction on attorney filings beyond existing rules. It provides: All parties are on notice that the Court has a no-tolerance policy for any briefing (AI-assisted or not) that hallucinates legal propositions or otherwise severely misstates the law.

No AI-specific filing obligation. This instrument is in force but imposes no disclosure, verification, or use restriction on attorney filings beyond existing rules; where it restates duties that already apply (Rule 11, professional conduct rules), those duties remain binding. It is listed so firms can see the court's stated expectations; the items below are not AI-specific filing obligations.

What the instrument provides

All parties are on notice that the Court has a no-tolerance policy for any briefing (AI-assisted or not) that hallucinates legal propositions or otherwise severely misstates the law.
Such filings will often result in sanctions absent reasonable excuse.
The notice is a clerk-issued enforcement signal, not a standing order; it does not impose a separate disclosure or certification requirement, but it does put attorneys on notice of how Rule 11 will be enforced in this district.

Practice areas: federal civil, federal criminal

Verify this order against the court's official website before relying on it. Standing orders are amended without notice. Requirements vary by judge and case type.

What the notice says

On September 12, 2025, the Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, Dinah Milton Kinney, issued a Notice to Counsel and Litigants Regarding AI-Assisted Research. It opens with a caution: “Attorneys and pro se litigants alike should exercise great caution in submitting any AI-generated language in filings before the Court.” The operative text reads:

All parties are on notice that the Court has a no-tolerance policy for any briefing (AI-assisted or not) that hallucinates legal propositions or otherwise severely misstates the law. Such filings will often result in sanctions absent reasonable excuse.

The notice is short, district-wide, and issued by the Clerk rather than the judges in a standing order. It does not impose a new disclosure or certification regime. Its function is to signal how Rule 11 will be enforced in the District of Connecticut: hallucinated legal authority will face sanctions, and the framing “AI-assisted or not” makes clear that the source of the error does not provide a defense.

How this differs from disclosure-style orders

Most of the federal AI orders surveyed for this tracker either require disclosure (E.D. Pa. Baylson chambers; N.D. Tex. Local Rule 7.2(f)), prohibit AI use (N.D. Ohio Boyko, S.D. Ohio Newman), or require certification (D. Haw. Kobayashi). The Connecticut notice does none of these. Its mechanism is enforcement signaling: it tells the bar what to expect when a Rule 11 motion lands in a Connecticut courtroom.

For our purposes, the practical effect is similar to E.D. Tex. GO 25-07 (Rule 11 anchor without procedural disclosure) and S.D. Tex. General Order 2025-04 (district-wide Rule 11 caution). The district treats hallucinated citations as Rule 11 violations, not as a separate procedural failure.

Practitioner workflow

D. Conn. matters: no disclosure block required; no certification required. The notice does not change the operative rule (Rule 11 still applies) but it does change the enforcement posture. Firms should treat any unverified AI-generated citation in a Connecticut filing as exposing the lawyer to immediate sanctions risk, with little prospect of leniency for “I didn’t realize the AI made it up.” The notice’s “AI-assisted or not” framing forecloses that excuse.

Scope and form

District-wide notice from the Clerk of Court. Not a standing order; not a local rule amendment. Some commentators frame it as a “rule”; the more accurate description is an enforcement notice.

Primary source

Notice (PDF): https://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Notice-to-Counsel-and-Litigants-Regarding-AI.pdf

Sanctions cases decided under this order

Cases in our tracker where this rule appears to have produced or directly informed the sanctions decision.

Barteca Holdings LLC v. Tacobarn Newtown LLC , Aug 2026 ($3,500 deposited with the Clerk of Court; referral to the District of Connecticut Grievance Committee under Local Rule 83(c)(2); Westlaw or Lexis hyperlinks required for every authority in defendants' future filings)
Raul Gonzales Davila v. Roblen, LLC f/d/b/a Vicolo Pizza Restaurant , Feb 2026
Cojom v. Roblen, LLC , Nov 2025 ($500)

D. Conn.: D. Conn. Notice to Counsel and Litigants Regarding AI-Assisted Research

Status and scope

What the instrument provides

What the notice says

How this differs from disclosure-style orders

Practitioner workflow

Scope and form

Primary source

Sanctions cases decided under this order

More orders affecting attorneys in this state

Court orders

From the blog