Claude responded: No. Contemplating Contemplating Searched the web  Searched the web No. The Utah Court of Appeals tested exactly that explanation in Garner v. Kadince, 2025 UT App 80, and sanctioned the lawyer anyway. What happened Attorney Richard Bednar filed a petition for permission to appeal that cited fabricated authority, including a case called “Royer v. Nelson” that does not exist. Petitioner’s counsel explained that the Petition had been prepared by an unlicensed law clerk, employed by their law firm, who used ChatGPT in the drafting of the Petition. Bednar admitted that he had not checked the brief’s accuracy before he signed it and filed it with the court. The firm also acknowledged that the use of AI had not been previously addressed at their firm through any policy. 20250522%20 %2020250188%20 %20Utah%20Court%20of%20Appeals +2  Why the explanation failed The signature is the accountability point. The court relied on rule 40 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, the appellate counterpart to rule 11 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, and pointed to Utah R. Prof. Conduct 3.3(a), under which a lawyer must not knowingly or recklessly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal. Signing without checking is the recklessness. Who typed the prompt is irrelevant. Stage management analogy: the clerk is the crew member who rigged the flyline. The stage manager who called the cue without checking the rig still owns the accident. Bednar’s own counsel recognized this. He said “you can’t point fingers and maintain credibility with the court,” so Bednar took responsibility for failing to review the cases. Court of Appeals of Utah, 2025 +3  The sanctions Bednar was ordered to pay the respondent’s attorney fees, refund fees to his client, and donate $1,000 to a legal non-profit. While the court appreciated Bednar’s acknowledgment, it still needed to place sanctions. The relatively mild package reflected candor and lack of malice, not the delegation excuse. iask  techspot  Practical takeaway “A clerk did it without my knowledge” is not a defense. If anything it adds a second problem: a supervision failure under the rules governing nonlawyer assistants (Utah RPC 5.3). What actually mitigates is prompt admission, apology, no attempt to defend the fake citations, and evidence of fixing the process (the clerk here was fired). Firms without an AI use policy are running the same unrigged show. I’m not a lawyer; for a live matter, talk to Utah counsel or the Utah State Bar ethics hotline.  Create a doc      just now