Connecticut sanctions motion alleges AI-hallucinated citations in court filings

AI Model: Unspecified generative AI tool

I. Executive Summary

In a Connecticut Superior Court case in Danbury, plaintiff’s counsel sought sanctions alleging that defense counsel filed motions containing fabricated and misquoted case law linked to AI-assisted drafting/research. The motion requests reimbursement of time spent addressing the alleged false authorities and other relief. The defense counsel reportedly acknowledged using research software with an AI component and withdrew/refiled at least one challenged filing, but the sanctions motion alleges additional inaccuracies persisted.

II. Key Facts

Motion for sanctions dated and filed January 16, 2026, in Connecticut Superior Court (Danbury).• Plaintiff counsel alleged at least 12 misrepresentations in one motion to strike, including non-existent cases and quotations not found in cited decisions.• Plaintiff counsel’s firm reportedly notified defense counsel of suspected AI-generated fabrications by email (Nov. 3, 2025).• Defense counsel reportedly responded that their research software includes an AI component, denied intent to mislead, and withdrew/refiled a motion.• The sanctions motion alleges the subsequent motion also contained fabricated material, including a repeated allegedly fabricated quote.

III. Regulatory & Ethical Implications

Reinforces that AI-assisted legal research/drafting does not reduce counsel’s duty of candor and reasonable inquiry; a sanctions motion framed as “fraud on the court” risk can accelerate local rulemaking (e.g., certification/verification requirements) and increase cost-shifting exposure where opposing counsel must investigate and rebut hallucinated authorities.

IV. Media Coverage & Sources

No external sources linked.