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.
L009For the requested period, January 1, 2023, through November 4, 2026, I cannot identify a verified Utah state court decision that directly addresses this defense and provides the required quotation and pinpoint citation.
L011Web search is unavailable in this session, so I cannot conduct or verify an exhaustive review of Utah appellate and trial court decisions through November 4, 2026.
L017Responsibility: Whether an attorney remains responsible for a court filing containing fabricated authorities when the fabrication originated with a law clerk.
L021These are not necessarily the same question. A lawyer's responsibility for supervising work and verifying submissions does not automatically establish that a particular sanction is warranted.
L023Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct, particularly Rules 3.3, 5.1, and 5.3, provide relevant frameworks. But those rules alone do not establish how a Utah court has decided the precise factual scenario you've described.
L073That does not mean no such decision exists, nor does it mean the defense would necessarily fail. It means the requested case-law support has not been established.