The attorney used ChatGPT to edit duplicate passages and adjust word counts in the January filings, and the AI system generated citations and quotations that were not caught during proofreading. The full scope of the errors and the court's reasoning for ordering the show-cause hearing remain undisclosed. It is unclear whether the Connecticut Supreme Court has issued a ruling or what sanctions, if any, it intends to impose.
This case tests a critical question for the legal profession: whether attorneys can escape ethics liability by claiming they did not knowingly introduce AI errors into court filings. As courts nationwide grapple with how to apply traditional candor rules to AI-assisted work, this decision will likely influence how other jurisdictions treat similar lapses. Attorneys relying on generative AI for drafting or editing should treat verification of citations and quotations as non-delegable—courts are signaling that "AI made the mistake" is not a viable defense.