Court - Judge Name	Effective Date	Applicable To	Categories	Summary
D. Conn. – Judge Vernon D. Oliver	11/25/2025	Generative AI	Generative AI Usage	In Andre v. Warden, FCI Danbury, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 232986 (D. Conn. Nov. 25, 2025), the pro se petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment that, when considered in light of other pleadings, appeared “unusually well-written and formatted for a pro se litigant” and prompted the court to think they were drafted by an attorney. Upon further review, the court discovered that the motion contained “multiple significant hallucinations” and inaccurate citations. During the hearing on the court’s order to show cause, the petitioner admitted that he heavily relied on AI tools during the drafting process and even asked some of his “friends” to “ask AI certain questions” and then have “AI ‘draft up motions.’” Judge Oliver found that the petitioner acted in “subjective bad faith,” thereby violating Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, because he made “misrepresentations to the Court as to the origins of the filings” by directing “third parties to use generative AI and then concealed his actions from the Court when given the opportunity to accept responsibility.” As sanctions, the court ultimately struck the petitioner’s motion for relief with prejudice.
			Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting
			Court-Imposed Consequences – Parties
D. Conn. – Judge Janet C. Hall	11/19/2025	Generative AI	Generative AI Usage	In Cojom v. Roblen, LLC., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225325 (D. Conn. Nov. 19, 2025), the court imposed a $500 sanction on plaintiff's counsel for relying on citations generated by Descrybe.AI, a legal research tool (Opinion at *1), in his memorandum in opposition to defendant’s motion to set aside default. The court suspected GenAI use because counsel cited three authorities that the court “could not locate despite its best efforts.” In response to Judge Hall's order to show cause, counsel admitted to using GenAI for legal research and expressed “sincere and unreserved apology,” noting that the many familiar cases the tool generated provided him a “false sense of confidence in the AI tool’s accuracy.” This led him to the “deeply flawed” assumption that the rest of the citations were also valid. Counsel stated that he was “committed to ensuring that this type of error does not recur and to maintaining the highest standards of accuracy, candor, and professionalism in [his] future conduct before this Court and all others.” At the show cause hearing, plaintiff’s counsel explained that he cancelled his license for the tool, underwent training on the risks of GenAI use, and committed to cease all use of GenAI in his practice. In imposing sanctions, the court noted the harm flowing from GenAI use in this case, including that the plaintiff was “deprived of arguments based on legitimate judicial precedent and his pro se opponent was forced to contend with arguments based on phony law without the benefit of legal representation,” along with the court’s expended time and resources in investigating the citations. Judge Hall explained that “submitting fake citations is more than just sloppy lawyering: it imperils the integrity of our judicial process.” The court acknowledged that GenAI is increasingly used in legal research and did not intend a “Luddite attack on technology,” but rather a warned that the unsophisticated tool “must necessarily yield to a lawyer’s obligation of candor to the court.” Thus, Judge Hall found that failing to verify the citations violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, and concluded it must sanction such conduct “which, if left unchecked, poses serious risk to the integrity of the judicial system.” After weighing the seriousness of the misconduct against counsel’s apology and steps to prevent error in the future, the court ordered a $500 monetary sanction
			Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting
			Court-Imposed Consequences – Attorneys/Law Firms
D. Conn. Bankr. – Judge Ann M. Nevins (Nov. 5, 2025)	11/5/2025	Generative AI	Generative AI Usage	In In re Mitchell, 2025 Bankr. LEXIS 2872, (D. Conn. Bankr. Nov. 5, 2025), the pro se debtor filed numerous papers that appeared “to have been generated by, or with the assistance of, artificial intelligence.” While the court stated that the use of GenAI is not prohibited, “parties are still required to certify the accuracy of all papers,” and the court found multiple nonexistent and inaccurately quoted cases. Previously, the court showed the pro se debtor leniency because of her self-represented status, but had cautioned the debtor to verify accuracy of any papers she files with the court. The court had also previously provided the pro se debtor with a courtesy copy of the district court’s notice on using AI. However, because the pro se debtor continued to rely on GenAI and nonexistent cases, the court required the pro se debtor, for all future filings, to include “a full copy of any and all cases or other cited authority, with relevant sections highlighted as an attachment.” The court stated that a “failure to comply will result in the filing being disregarded.”
			Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting
			Court-Imposed Consequences – Parties
D. Conn. -- District Wide	9/12/2025	Generative AI	Generative AI Usage	The judges of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut published a “Notice to Counsel and Litigants Regarding AI-Assisted Research,” which states 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.” The notice further states that such filings will “often result in sanctions absent reasonable excuse.” The notice also directs attorney and pro se litigant to “exercise great caution” when submitting AI-generated language in court filings and reminds litigants that the misuse of AI implicates the Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, which the court also notes applies to pro se litigants.
			Suggests Cautious Use of AI
			Applies to AI Used for Research
			Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting
D. Conn. – Judge Vernon D. Oliver	7/3/2025	Generative AI	Suggests Cautious Use of AI	In Roark v. American Airlines Group, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-01695, Dkt. No. 54 (D. Conn. July 3, 2025), in an order via docket entry granting the plaintiff’s motion to set aside the default judgment, the court noted that the pro se defendant’s memorandum in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion was “rife with phantom cases and nonexistent case law.” The court ultimately declined to impose sanctions on the defendant—notwithstanding his pro se status—because he appeared to “observe[] the Court’s [prior] warning about an overreliance on AI.”
			Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting
D. Conn. – Judge Vernon D. Oliver	4/30/2025	Generative AI	Generative AI Usage	In Moales v. Land Rover Cherry Hill, 2025 WL 124961 (D. Conn. Apr. 30, 2025), the court addressed the accuracy of legal citations in the pro se plaintiff’s findings. The plaintiff cited several cases that did not support the propositions for which they were referenced, and that such misstatements were “the norm rather than the exception” in the plaintiff’s submissions. The court specifically noted the possibility that the plaintiff “may have used artificial intelligence in drafting his submission,” and cautioned the plaintiff to ensure that all future submissions contain only accurate representations. Although the court did not impose sanctions, the court warned the plaintiff to exercise caution in the future, noting that “reliance on artificial intelligence without independent verification renders litigants unable to represent to the Court that the information in their filings is truthful.”.
			Suggests Cautious Use of AI
			Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting

Contacts