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?
L008A recent Utah case addressed almost exactly this scenario. In Garner v. Kadince, 2025 UT App 80, the attorneys told the court that an unlicensed law clerk had used ChatGPT to prepare part of a filing without the signing attorney's knowledge, and that fabricated citations made their way into the brief. The attorneys acknowledged the error and accepted responsibility. Despite that explanation, the Utah Court of Appeals imposed sanctions.
L012The court emphasized that attorneys remain responsible for the contents of documents they sign and file, regardless of whether the mistakes originated with AI or a subordinate. The court stated that lawyers maintain a “gatekeeping” role and must verify citations and legal authorities before filing.
L028So, while a lawyer's lack of personal knowledge that a law clerk used ChatGPT may be relevant in mitigation and could affect the severity of sanctions, Utah courts have indicated that it is not a complete defense to sanctions. The signing attorney still has a duty to verify the accuracy of citations and legal authorities before submitting a filing.
L032This is an informational summary, not legal advice. If you're dealing with a specific disciplinary or sanctions issue, the exact outcome would depend on the rules invoked and the particular facts of the case.