Connecticut: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Connecticut firm: No Connecticut bar ethics opinion or state-court rule governs attorney AI use today, so ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024) plus Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.4, 1.6, 3.3, 5.1, 5.3, and 8.4 form the operative ethics framework. The U.S. District of Connecticut’s 2025-09-12 notice creates real Rule 11 exposure for any unverified AI content in federal filings, and the live GLG Law matter at the Connecticut Supreme Court signals state-court consequences are pending. Firms without a written AI policy, a verification protocol, and vendor diligence records are exposed before any new rule takes effect.

Start with: a written AI use policy, a citation verification log keyed to the D. Conn. notice, and vendor due-diligence records for each AI tool in use.

No operative bar opinion (pending activity)

No formal or informal opinion on attorney AI use has issued from the Connecticut Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics. To monitor, watch the CBA’s informal opinions index. An active standing committee, the CBA’s Generative AI Committee, runs CLE programming but has published no written guidance as of 2026-04-23. Within the Judicial Branch, the Committee on Artificial Intelligence in the Connecticut Legal System (CAIC) is evaluating whether the Practice Book and Rules of Professional Conduct require amendment for AI. No rule changes have been enacted. See Section 6 for pending activity.

In the absence of Connecticut-specific guidance, ABA Formal Opinion 512 (Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools, 2024-07-29) is the most directly applicable framework. Connecticut adopted ABA Model Rule 1.1 Comment 8 (technology competence) effective 2014-01-01, and Connecticut’s RPCs parallel the ABA Model Rules covered by Op 512 in all relevant respects.

What federal courts in Connecticut require for AI use in filings

On 2025-09-12, the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut issued a Notice to Counsel and Litigants Regarding AI-Assisted Research. Per the notice, use of AI without verification of the accuracy of its output implicates Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. The notice announces a no-tolerance policy for hallucinated legal propositions or other severe misstatements of law: “Such filings will often result in sanctions absent reasonable excuse.” Affirmative pre-filing disclosure of AI use is not required; verification before filing is. It applies district-wide to attorneys and pro se litigants.

What Connecticut state courts require for AI use in filings

No Connecticut state-court AI rule has been adopted. Based on published amendment notices, the 2026 Connecticut Practice Book (effective 2026-01-01) does not contain an AI-specific rule. A mandatory AI citation certification rule was considered by the Superior Court Rules Committee but action was deferred (see Section 6). Firms should monitor the Connecticut Law Journal Practice Book index for adopted amendments. The Connecticut Judicial Branch’s Responsible AI Policy Framework, Version 2.1 (2024-02-01) governs court staff and judicial-branch AI procurement, not attorneys filing in Connecticut courts.

Has anyone been sanctioned for AI use in Connecticut?

Attorneys at GLG Law LLC submitted a brief to the Connecticut Supreme Court in a landlord-tenant eviction matter containing fabricated citations generated by AI. Yale Law School’s Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization identified the errors. In a memo to the Supreme Court, GLG attorneys acknowledged AI was used to help organize, format, and review the brief, and stated that counsel did not notice AI had made changes prior to filing. As of March 2026, the Supreme Court was considering referral to the Statewide Grievance Committee, monetary sanctions, and certification requirements for future AI-assisted filings; final outcome not confirmed. This matter is the direct catalyst for the Superior Court Rules Committee’s proposed AI citation rule.

What AI-related rules are pending in Connecticut?

Superior Court Rules Committee proposed AI citation certification rule. At its 2025-02-09 meeting, the Rules Committee considered requiring attorneys using AI for legal research to certify independent verification of all citations. Case-ending sanctions would be available for citation errors linked to AI misuse. Discussion continued into early 2026. At the February 2026 meeting, no action was taken and the matter was deferred. Verification has always been required under Rules 3.3 and 8.4; a formal certification rule would create an explicit, sanctions-bearing record of noncompliance.

CBA Generative AI Committee and CAIC. Both bodies are studying attorney-facing AI questions but have produced no published written guidance.

Connecticut SB 5 (2026), “An Act Concerning Online Safety.” Passed the Connecticut Senate 32-4 on 2026-04-21; pending House action as of 2026-04-23. The 40-section omnibus bill does not directly regulate attorney conduct. Provisions of potential firm relevance include employment-related AI decision-making rules (relevant if the firm uses AI in hiring or personnel decisions) and a regulatory sandbox.

Connecticut SB 2 (2025). Passed the Senate 32-4 on 2025-05-15 but did not receive a House floor vote and died at end of session. Its deployer obligations are not Connecticut law.

Public Act 25-113 (signed 2025-06-25). Effective 2026-07-01, the act amends the Connecticut Data Privacy Act. Covered controllers must disclose in their consumer-facing privacy notice whether they “collect, use or sell personal data for the purpose of training large language models.” Bill text. The CTDPA applies to controllers processing personal data of 100,000 or more Connecticut consumers annually, or 25,000 or more where data sale contributes to revenue. Most 5-50 attorney firms will not cross those thresholds as controllers, but firms advising clients who do, and firms whose vendors do, should account for the requirement.

Connecticut AG AI Advisory (2026-02-25). Attorney General William Tong issued a memorandum clarifying that existing Connecticut civil rights, consumer protection (CUTPA), privacy (CTDPA), and antitrust laws apply to AI-driven conduct without new legislation. Firms using AI in client-intake screening, marketing, or automated billing should review those workflows against the civil rights and consumer protection categories.

How do malpractice carriers in Connecticut treat AI use?

No Connecticut-specific malpractice carrier guidance on AI has been publicly issued. Standard lawyers professional liability policies were not written with generative AI in mind. One non-standard LPL program has attached a manuscript endorsement excluding any claim “based upon any actual or alleged use of generative artificial intelligence by the law firm.” Whether standard policy language reaches AI-related malpractice claims is unresolved, and some cyber-policy structures cap AI-adjacent claims well below overall policy limits. Connecticut firms using AI in client matters should confirm in writing with their LPL carrier or broker whether the current policy covers claims arising from AI-generated work product. Document what exclusions or sublimits apply and what documentation the carrier expects.

What does my Connecticut malpractice carrier ask about AI at renewal?

No Connecticut malpractice carrier has published AI-specific application items in materials reviewed for this entry. The substantive standard a carrier or broker will reference is ABA Formal Opinion 512 plus the Connecticut RPCs, with the D. Conn. notice as the operative federal-filing standard. Plan on producing: a written AI use policy, attorney and staff training records, vendor due-diligence records, a citation-verification protocol, and supervision records for AI-generated work product. If Public Act 25-113 reaches the firm or its vendors, the firm’s privacy notice must reflect the LLM training data disclosure by 2026-07-01. Confirm application items directly with the carrier or broker.

What documentation should a Connecticut firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy (Rules 1.1, 1.6, 5.1, 5.3; ABA Op 512). Enumerate approved tools, prohibit submitting unverified AI output to courts or clients, address which tools may receive client-identifying information, and assign verification responsibility per matter.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification log keyed to the D. Conn. notice (Rules 3.3, 8.4; Fed. R. Civ. P. 11). On any filing where AI assisted in research or drafting, document independent verification of citations against primary sources before submission. The 2025-09-12 D. Conn. notice and the GLG Law matter make this mandatory in practice.
3. (Owner: litigation lead) D. Conn. and Superior Court filing checklist (Rule 3.3; Fed. R. Civ. P. 11). Review the D. Conn. notice before each federal filing; treat the proposed Superior Court certification standard as operative for state filings; check the Connecticut Law Journal for any adopted Practice Book AI rule.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) Vendor due-diligence records (Rule 1.6). For each AI tool used on client matters: documented review of data handling, retention, training-data use, and security certifications; data processing agreement where available; dated review updated when terms change.
2. (Owner: firm administrator) Attorney and staff training records (Rules 1.1, 5.1, 5.3). Date, attendees, and content of training on AI tool limitations, hallucination risk, confidentiality obligations under Rule 1.6, and the firm’s AI policy. Update when tools or guidance change.
3. (Owner: managing partner) Supervision protocol (Rules 5.1, 5.3). Document how managing attorneys supervise AI use by lawyers and non-lawyers to the same standard as other work product.

Months four to six (per-matter discipline)

These are recurring practices, not one-time projects: each new matter exercises them.

1. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Per-matter AI use notes (Rules 1.1, 3.3). Brief attorney note on any matter where AI generated research, drafted pleadings, or produced filed content: which tool, what tasks, how output was verified.
2. (Owner: managing partner + billing partner) Engagement letter and disclosure decision log (Rules 1.4, 1.5). No Connecticut per se disclosure requirement exists today. Document the disclosure analysis for each matter where AI materially affects scope, cost, or confidentiality. Address AI tool use in retainer terms where matter sensitivity warrants.
3. (Owner: managing partner) CTDPA and carrier inquiry review (Rule 1.6). Confirm whether the firm or any vendor is a CTDPA controller subject to Public Act 25-113 (effective 2026-07-01). Document the written conversation with the LPL carrier or broker on AI coverage and required documentation.

We are building practitioner resources for firms working through this list. The monthly update covers new resources as they ship.