About

Connecticut Attorney "Extremely Embarrassed" Over ChatGPT Errors in Supreme Court Briefs

Published
Score
20

Why it matters

Connecticut attorney Steven A. Schwartz appeared before the state's Supreme Court to acknowledge using ChatGPT to edit legal briefs without verifying the AI's output, resulting in filings containing fabricated case citations. The court ordered Schwartz and his co-counsel to explain errors in briefs filed in January 2026, leading to a sanctions hearing scheduled for July 2026. This follows a prior federal sanctions case in the Southern District of New York where Schwartz and attorney Peter LoDuca were each fined $5,000 for submitting briefs with bogus citations generated by ChatGPT.

The Connecticut Supreme Court has not yet disclosed the specific citations at issue or details of the sanctions hearing. It remains unclear whether the state court will impose additional penalties beyond those already assessed in the federal case.

Attorneys should treat this as a compliance wake-up call. Courts are now actively sanctioning lawyers who fail to verify AI-generated content before filing, and the pattern is accelerating—similar incidents occurred in Utah and New York in recent years. Firms need immediate protocols requiring human verification of all AI-assisted legal research and citation work. The ethical duty of competence under state bar rules now explicitly includes understanding the limitations of generative AI tools. Failure to implement these safeguards exposes firms to sanctions, fee forfeiture, and reputational damage.

Sources

mail Subscribe to Law And Technology email updates

Primary sources. No fluff. Straight to your inbox.

Also on LawSnap