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.
L006No. Based on my research, one Utah state court decision squarely addresses this exact scenario, and it held that a lawyer’s lack of knowledge about a clerk’s ChatGPT use did not avoid sanctions.
L012The facts match your hypothetical. The court found: “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.” 2025 UT App 80, ¶5. It also found: “Petitioner’s counsel were not aware that the law clerk was using ChatGPT in the preparation of their firm’s legal work”. Id. ¶5. The signing attorney, Bednar, did not independently check the accuracy of the Petition before signing and filing it with the court. Id.
L018The duty belongs to the attorney. “However, we emphasize that every attorney has an ongoing duty to review and ensure the accuracy of their court filings.” Id. ¶8.
L022The signature is the hook. The court held that Bednar’s signature served to “certif[y] that to the best of [his] knowledge formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,” the “legal contentions are warranted by existing law.” Id. ¶10 (quoting Utah R. App. P. 40(b)). The court also noted that a fake opinion is not “existing law.” Id.
L026Contrition did not excuse it. “Although the court appreciates Petitioner’s counsel’s acceptance of responsibility for their conduct, filing pleadings or other legal documents without taking the necessary care in their preparation is an abuse of the judicial system and subject to sanctions.” Id. ¶12.
L030Nobody else will catch it for you. “Opposing counsel cannot be required to independently verify the veracity of each citation in another’s court filings.” Id. ¶15.
L034Result. The court ordered Bednar to pay the opposing party’s fees for the petition and the hearing. Counsel also had to refund the client’s fees for the petition, and Bednar had to pay a $1,000 donation to “and Justice for all.” Id. ¶16.
L040It defeated the Rule 3.3 candor theory. That rule requires a knowing or reckless false statement. The court found that counsel did make “a false statement of . . . law to a tribunal,” we find that their conduct fell short of the level of intent required by the rule. Id. ¶11 n.4.
L043It reduced the size of the sanction. The court distinguished cases like Mata, where lawyers doubled down on the fake citations. It noted that “Petitioner’s counsel’s conduct has not been similarly egregious, and they have accepted responsibility for their misrepresentations to this court.” Id. ¶13.
L047The practical takeaway is that Rule 40, and its trial-level counterpart Rule 11 (see id. ¶9), applies an objective reasonable-inquiry standard. Your state of mind does not cure a failure to read what you signed. Ignorance only helps under intent-based rules and when the court is deciding how severe the sanction should be.
L050This is the only on-point decision I found. I found no Utah Supreme Court decision and no other Utah appellate decision in the 2023 to Nov. 4, 2026 window that addresses the clerk-did-it defense specifically.
L051One possible lead I could not verify. Secondary trackers report that Prisbrey v. Prisbrey, 2026 UT App 39, publicly admonished the appellee’s counsel for filing a brief containing numerous fabricated or incorrect legal citations. I couldn’t access the opinion, and the reported filing dates conflict between sources. Nothing indicates it involved a clerk excuse, so I’m not relying on it.
L054Watch for overstatement in secondary sources. One tracker says Garner made verification “non-delegable under Utah RPC 5.3.” The opinion does not cite Rule 5.3. It rests on Rule 40 and declines to find a Rule 3.3 violation. Don’t cite Garner for a Rule 5.3 holding.
L055District court rulings may exist. Utah district court rulings are mostly unpublished and not searchable through the tools I have. Check Westlaw or Lexis for trial-level orders.