Connecticut Practice Book section 4-9

Adopted, not proposed

This matters, because it has been reported both ways. Some coverage used “would make”, which reads as a proposal. It is not a proposal. The Judicial Branch’s own law libraries notice, headed “New Court Rule on Generative Artificial Intelligence Compliance” and posted 24 June 2026, records that section 4-9 is among the new Practice Book amendments that became effective upon publication in the June 23, 2026 Connecticut Law Journal. It is in force.

The rule, in full

“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.”

The official Commentary ties it to the signature rule:

“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.”

Four words practitioners keep missing

• “any person”Not “any attorney”. It reaches self-represented parties and anyone else who files.
• “or editing”Using AI to tidy a document you wrote yourself brings you inside the rule. There is no de minimis carve-out.
• “or evidence”Alone among the instruments on this record, it names fabricated evidence, not only fabricated authority.
• Automatic certificationUnder subsection (c) and revised section 4-2(b), you certify compliance by the act of filing. There is nothing extra to sign and no way to file without asserting it.

Why nonsuit is the part that changes behaviour

Every other consequence on this record falls on the lawyer: fees, fines, reprimands, referrals, in one case a lost fee and removal from the case. A nonsuit or default judgment falls on the client. That converts an AI-verification failure from a professional embarrassment into a malpractice exposure, and it is the reason this rule will be read by insurers before it is read by most litigators.

Sources

• “New Court Rule on Generative Artificial Intelligence Compliance”, Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries NewsLog, 24 June 2026
• Connecticut Practice Book, 2026 edition (Judicial Branch)
• Effective on publication in the Connecticut Law Journal of 23 June 2026. Read together with revised section 4-2(b).

Related

• Every verified AI standing order
• The rules layer
• Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Canadian equivalent in reach
• What an AI standing order is

Checked 5 August 2026 against the Judicial Branch’s own notice. Information, not legal advice, and not advice on Connecticut practice.