Judiciary Committee holds marathon reappointment hearing; AI, admonishments and pro se caseloads draw scrutiny

The Connecticut General Assembly Judiciary Committee convened Feb. 18 for a lengthy public hearing on judicial reappointments, taking opening statements from nominees ranging from a prospective associate justice of the state Supreme Court to multiple Superior Court judges.

The most sustained exchanges focused on three themes that recurred across multiple nominees: the rise of artificial intelligence in court filings, past discipline or admonishments, and pressure from a growing number of self‑represented litigants in family and appellate dockets.

Nominee Stephen Ecker, who described himself as recently appointed co‑chair of the branch’s Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the courts, warned lawmakers that AI can create “hallucinated” citations and unreliable propositions in briefs and motions and said evidence authentication will be a major challenge. "It's very difficult to distinguish fact from fiction," he told the committee, urging procedural safeguards and a certification framework for filings.

Several Superior Court nominees addressed specific conduct questions. Tejas Fath acknowledged a private admonishment by the Judicial Review Council in 2023 arising from an offhand remark in chambers, apologized and described a program of training and personal remediation. "I apologized then immediately because it was never my intention to put somebody in that position," he said, and described implicit‑bias and ethics courses he has since taken.

Nominees across trial and appellate dockets also flagged access‑to‑justice strains. Appellate judge Ingrid Moll told the committee that roughly 40% of appeals include at least one self‑represented party and said clerk offices are trying to accommodate pro se filers without prejudicing opposing parties. Several trial judges said the volume of family and juvenile matters — and the complexity of some cases, such as high‑asset Family Court matters in Stamford — are stretching court resources.

Committee members repeatedly raised procedural issues such as the 120‑day rule for issuing decisions, extensions by agreement, and the need to balance timeliness with the demands of voluminous habeas or land‑use records.

Public comment at the end of the hearing included endorsements from the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association and individual attorneys who praised specific judges’ courtroom demeanor and case management.

The committee did not take final confirmation votes during the session; additional hearings and committee work were scheduled to continue the review process.