AI output retained as evidence, including errors. It is not an adopted legal opinion. Line numbers identify logical transcript lines, not original screen or court pages.
Prompt
Can a Utah lawyer avoid sanctions for fabricated citations by explaining that a law clerk used ChatGPT without the lawyer's knowledge?
L005No. A Utah lawyer cannot automatically avoid sanctions by claiming that a law clerk used ChatGPT without the lawyer's knowledge. The explanation may affect the severity of sanctions, but it does not eliminate the lawyer's independent responsibility to verify citations submitted to a court.
L011Under Utah R. Civ. P. 11(b), an attorney presenting a pleading, motion, or other paper to the court certifies that, after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
L019Crucially, Rule 11(c) permits sanctions against an attorney responsible for a violation. Delegating research to a law clerk does not transfer the attorney's certification obligations to that clerk.
L021However, Rule 11 is not a strict-liability rule. The court must consider whether the attorney's inquiry was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. A lawyer's lack of knowledge may therefore matter, particularly if reasonable verification procedures were followed.
L031If the clerk was a nonlawyer employee, the supervising attorney's responsibilities include appropriate oversight. If the clerk was a licensed lawyer, Rule 5.1 concerning supervision of subordinate lawyers may apply instead.
L037Importantly, Rule 3.3's knowledge requirement differs from Rule 11's objective reasonableness standard. A lawyer might avoid a finding of knowing misconduct while still facing Rule 11 sanctions for failing to verify citations.
L041In Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023), attorneys were sanctioned after submitting fabricated judicial decisions generated by ChatGPT.
L043The court emphasized not merely the initial use of AI, but the attorneys' failure to verify authorities and their subsequent conduct when the authenticity of those authorities was questioned.
L045This is a federal district court decision from New York, not binding Utah precedent, but it illustrates why blaming an AI system or the person who operated it does not necessarily excuse the attorney who submitted the document.
L106The distinction matters because Rule 11 evaluates the reasonableness of the attorney's conduct, not simply whether the attorney personally intended to mislead the court.
L108One qualification: Utah state-court Rule 11, federal Rule 11, appellate briefing rules, and a court's inherent sanctioning authority can impose different requirements. The procedural setting matters.
L110I cannot verify Utah decisions issued through November 4, 2026, because live web search is unavailable in this conversation. Accordingly, this is an analysis of the governing rules and established federal authority, not a claim that no newer Utah decision addresses this precise defense.