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?
Limit this to Utah state court decisions from 2023 to November 4, 2026. For each case you cite, give the full citation and quote the sentence that supports the point, with its pinpoint. If you can't find a case that supports it, say so instead of guessing.
L004Limit this to Utah state court decisions from 2023 to November 4, 2026. For each case you cite, give the full citation and quote the sentence that supports the point, with its pinpoint. If you can't find a case that supports it, say so instead of guessing.
L009Within your specified scope, Utah state court decisions issued from January 1, 2023, through November 4, 2026, I cannot identify a verified decision that addresses this precise defense.
L011Because live legal research is unavailable in this session, I cannot reliably determine whether such a decision exists. I therefore cannot provide a verified full citation, supporting quotation, or pinpoint.
L017A lawyer's lack of knowledge might be relevant to the court's assessment of culpability or an appropriate sanction. But it does not, by itself, establish that the lawyer is exempt from responsibility for a filing submitted under the lawyer's name.
L027I would not cite a case, attribute a quotation to a Utah court, or claim a categorical Utah rule without checking the actual judicial opinion. Fabricating authority to answer a question about fabricated authority would be a particularly efficient way to demonstrate the problem.