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?
L008In Garner v. Kadince (2025 UT App 80), the Utah Court of Appeals addressed a filing that contained AI-generated fictitious citations. The attorneys explained that an unlicensed law clerk had used ChatGPT without their knowledge and that they had failed to independently verify the citations before filing. Despite that explanation, the court imposed sanctions.
L012The court emphasized that attorneys have a continuing duty to verify the accuracy of filings submitted under their names and signatures. The court stated that while AI tools may be used in legal practice, lawyers retain the "gatekeeping" responsibility to ensure that citations and legal authorities are accurate and actually exist.
L028So, if a Utah lawyer argued, "My law clerk used ChatGPT without my knowledge," that explanation could potentially mitigate culpability or affect the severity of sanctions, but Garner v. Kadince suggests it would not, by itself, eliminate responsibility. The signing attorney remains responsible for verifying the contents of a court filing before submission.
L032This is a general legal discussion, not legal advice. For a specific disciplinary or sanctions matter, the precise outcome would depend on the court, applicable rule, and facts of the case.