You said:
Can a Utah lawyer avoid sanctions for fabricated citations by explaining that a law clerk used ChatGPT without the lawyer's knowledge?

Copilot said:

No. In Utah, that explanation may be relevant to the court's choice of sanctions, but it is unlikely to completely excuse the lawyer.

In 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.
lotusappellatelaw
+1

The 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.
lotusappellatelaw
+1

In that case, the court reportedly ordered sanctions that included:

Payment of opposing counsel's fees related to responding to the defective filing.
ksl
+1
A refund of fees charged to the client for the flawed petition.
ksl
+1
A $1,000 payment to a legal-aid charity.
lotusappellatelaw
+1

So, 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.
lotusappellatelaw
+1

This 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.

References
Explain the Utah rule on filing verification
Compare sanctions in similar AI-citation cases
Draft a mitigation argument for the lawyer