Connecticut Practice Book Section 4-9 (Generative AI)

What happened

On June 11, 2026, the judges of the Connecticut Superior Court adopted a package of Practice Book amendments. Most take effect at the start of the following year. The notice published in the Connecticut Law Journal on June 23 makes three exceptions, including revisions to Section 4-2 and new Section 4-9, which "become effective upon publication in this Connecticut Law Journal."

Section 4-9, titled Generative Artificial Intelligence Compliance, is new. The revision to Section 4-2(b), on signing pleadings, ties the two together. Signing a pleading, motion, objection or request has long certified that the signer has read the document and that there is good ground to support it. It now also certifies that the signer has complied with Section 4-9, so the AI obligation travels with every signature rather than sitting in a separate form.

What was issued or decided

Section 4-9(a) defines generative AI as any machine-learning model or application that can create original content in response to a prompt, and lists examples by name, among them ChatGPT, Co-Counsel, Harvey, DeepSeek and Grok.

Section 4-9(b) states 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. The failure to do so may result in court-imposed sanctions, including, without limitation, the entry of a nonsuit or default judgment."

Section 4-9(c) makes filing a representation that the filer has reviewed the rule and made good faith, diligent efforts to comply. Section 4-9(d) places compliance on the filer alone: "The court or the clerk of the court is not required to review any filed document for compliance with this rule."

Where it stands

The rule has been in force since its publication in June. No amendment was located as of October 8. The federal Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules reproduced the rule in the Reporter's September memorandum on deepfakes. The Reporter commented that, because it reaches evidence and not only citations, it appears to place on counsel a burden of inquiry into the audio, video and documents a client supplies, a burden the memorandum questioned for criminal defense counsel in particular.

Three features set Section 4-9 apart from most local orders in this record. It applies to "any person" who files, which includes self-represented parties. Its verification duty extends expressly to evidence. And it does not require anyone to disclose that AI was used; it requires only that whatever AI produced be verified. A sworn expert affidavit or report filed as an exhibit is a filed document within its terms, so an expert whose work is filed in a Connecticut court is inside the rule even though the rule never mentions experts.

The rule names its sanctions in unusual terms. A court may enter a nonsuit against a plaintiff or a default against a defendant, outcomes that fall on the party's case rather than only on counsel, as in the Tenth Circuit's proposed Rule 46.5(B)(4).

How it maps to the Standard

Section 4-9(b) is Clause 3 of the Standard, independent authority, written as a court rule and extended to evidence. The phrase "independently verify" is the Standard's own test.

Section 4-9(d) bears on Clause 7, contemporaneous record. If no one at the court will check compliance, the only proof that verification happened is the filer's own record of it, and that record is what a challenge under the rule will ask to see.

Sources

• Connecticut Judicial Branch (Connecticut Law Journal) · June 23, 2026
  Practice Book Amendments, Superior Court Rules, June 23, 2026
• Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules (Reporter's memorandum, October 15, 2026 agenda book) · September 15, 2026
  Deepfakes and Draft Rule 901(c)

What could not be confirmed

How Connecticut courts have applied Section 4-9 in individual cases was not researched for this entry.