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:

Generally, no. A Utah lawyer is unlikely to avoid sanctions simply by saying that a law clerk used ChatGPT without the lawyer's knowledge.

In 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.
lotusappellatelaw
+1

The 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.
lotusappellatelaw
+1

The sanctions in Garner v. Kadince included:

Payment of opposing counsel's fees related to addressing the defective filing.
lotusappellatelaw
+1
Refunding the client for fees associated with the improper filing.
lotusappellatelaw
+1
A $1,000 payment to a legal-aid nonprofit organization.
lotusappellatelaw
+1

So 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.
lotusappellatelaw
+1

In short: the explanation may mitigate sanctions, but Utah precedent indicates it will not automatically prevent them.
lotusappellatelaw
+1

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