CT · rules
Conn. Practice Book § 4-9
Generative Artificial Intelligence (“Generative AI”) Compliance
(a) “Generative AI” means: any machine-learning model/application
that can create original content—such as text, images, video, audio or
software code—in response to a prompt or request, including but not
limited to, ChatGPT, Co-Counsel, Google Bard, Neeva, Harvey, Ironclad,
Bing, DeepSeek, Grok, and similar technology.
(b) Due to the risk that generative AI can create inaccurate factual and
legal information, including, without limitation, faulty citations to legal
authority, fabricated quotations from such authority, and inaccurate or
fabricated evidence, 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.
The failure to do so may result in court-imposed sanctions, including,
without limitation, the entry of a nonsuit or default judgment.
(c) Any person who files documents with the court represents that
they have reviewed this rule and, by filing the document, represents that
they have made good faith, diligent efforts to ensure compliance with
their obligations under this rule, all other rules of practice, the Rules of
Professional Conduct, and any applicable provision of Connecticut law
regarding the use of or reliance on generative AI.
(d) The responsibility for complying with this rule rests solely with the
person filing the document. The court or the clerk of the court is not
required to review any filed document for compliance with this rule.
History
Amended effective 2026-06-23 by the Connecticut Law Journal notice adopted 2026-06-11. COMMENTARY: Although generative AI, if used properly, may offer certain efficien- cies in drafting legal documents, this new rule cautions persons who file documents with the court about the inherent risks of this technology and requires them to verify independently all citations, legal authorities and evidence produced by generative AI. This new rule should be read together with the revisions to Section 4-2 (b) that expressly state that the signer of any pleading, motion, objection or request certifies that they have complied with the generative AI obligations under this rule.
Provenance
- Source
- jud.ct.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-15
- Edition
- 2026-09-15
- Content hash
82e7d35d1ebe92fe5a6b7e79773788331f272794a1c276ca416157f9e37da20e
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.