A PYMNTS Company

AI in Litigation: New California Law on Lawyer Use and Connecticut Prompt Injection Ruling

 |  October 19, 2026
Agentic AI Poses New Antitrust Risks, Legal Experts Warn

By: Susana Medeiros & Susan Linda Ross (Norton Rose Fulbright)

    Get the Full Story

    Complete the form to unlock this article and enjoy unlimited free access to all PYMNTS content — no additional logins required.

    Subscribe to our daily newsletter, PYMNTS Today.

    By completing this form, you agree to receive marketing communications from PYMNTS and to the sharing of your information with our sponsor, if applicable, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.

    In this blog entry, authors Susana Medeiros and Susan Linda Ross (Norton Rose Fulbright) have a look at emerging legal, ethical and security challenges surrounding the use of artificial intelligence in litigation, highlighting a new California law and a Connecticut court ruling involving the misuse of AI in legal filings.

    California’s S.B. 574, signed on September 30, 2026, and effective January 1, 2027, establishes obligations for lawyers using generative AI. Attorneys may not delegate the practice of law to AI and must take reasonable steps to verify AI-generated content, correct errors, protect confidential and personal information, and disclose AI use in documents submitted to courts. Lawyers must also personally verify every citation in court filings. Similar restrictions apply to arbitrators, who cannot delegate decision-making to AI or rely on information generated outside the record without appropriate disclosure.

    The authors also examine Elliott v. New York Bariatric Group, LLC, an August 2026 Connecticut case in which a self-represented plaintiff embedded hidden, white-on-white instructions in court filings designed to manipulate AI systems into producing responses favorable to the plaintiff. The court characterized this conduct as serious litigation abuse and revoked the plaintiff’s electronic filing privileges, requiring future submissions to be made in person on paper. While recognizing AI’s potential to improve access to justice, the court emphasized that its use must not undermine the integrity of legal proceedings.

    The cases illustrate the need for stronger safeguards against AI-related security threats, including prompt injection attacks concealed within external documents. The authors recommend that organizations consider scanning documents for suspicious instructions, removing hidden content, and restricting the processing of machine-readable material where appropriate. They emphasize the importance of AI security awareness, training, and governance protocols to protect legal workflows and ensure the responsible use of emerging technologies…

    CONTINUE READING…