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, the Utah Court of Appeals considered exactly that type of explanation. The attorneys acknowledged that an unlicensed law clerk had used ChatGPT without their knowledge and that the resulting filing contained fabricated citations. Despite that explanation, the court sanctioned the attorneys because they failed to verify the authorities before filing the document.
L012The court emphasized that attorneys retain a "gatekeeping" responsibility for documents filed under their names. It held that AI-generated fictitious cases are not existing law and that lawyers must independently verify citations and legal authorities before submitting them to a court.
L028So the lesson from Garner v. Kadince is that a law clerk's undisclosed use of ChatGPT may help explain how the error occurred, but it does not generally relieve the signing attorney of responsibility. The court treated the failure to verify citations as the lawyers' own failure, notwithstanding the clerk's role.