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

Limit this to Utah state court decisions from 2023 to November 4, 2026. For each case you cite, give the full citation and quote the sentence that supports the point, with its pinpoint. If you can't find a case that supports it, say so instead of guessing.

Copilot said:

Based on my search of Utah state court decisions from January 1, 2023 through November 4, 2026, I found one Utah state appellate decision directly addressing this situation. I did not find any Utah state court decision in that period holding that a lawyer avoided sanctions because a law clerk used ChatGPT without the lawyer's knowledge.
thelawlion

1. Garner v. Kadince, 2025 UT App 80 (Utah Ct. App. May 22, 2025)

The attorneys argued that an unlicensed law clerk used ChatGPT and that the signing attorney did not know of its use:

“Petitioner’s counsel explained that the Petition had been prepared by an unlicensed law clerk, employed by their law firm, who used ChatGPT in the drafting of the Petition. Mr. Durbano was not involved with the drafting of the Petition and Mr. Bednar did not independently check the accuracy of the Petition before signing and filing it with the court. Petitioner’s counsel were not aware that the law clerk was using ChatGPT in the preparation of their firm’s legal work ....”¶ 5.
thelawlion

The court nevertheless held that attorneys remain responsible for verifying filings:

“However, we emphasize that every attorney has an ongoing duty to review and ensure the accuracy of their court filings.”¶ 8.
thelawlion

The court specifically found that counsel violated the appellate rule and imposed sanctions:

“In the present case, Petitioner’s counsel fell short of their gatekeeping responsibilities as members of the Utah State Bar when they submitted a petition that contained fake precedent generated by ChatGPT.”¶ 8.
thelawlion

“The court, having reviewed the filings and heard from the parties at the April 22, 2025 OSC hearing, finds that Petitioner’s counsel violated rule 40 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure and imposes sanctions.”¶ 1.
thelawlion

And:

“Here, the Petition failed to comply with rule 40.”¶ 10.
thelawlion

Bottom line

No Utah state court decision that I found from 2023 through November 4, 2026 holds that a lawyer can avoid sanctions by explaining that a law clerk used ChatGPT without the lawyer's knowledge. To the contrary, in Garner v. Kadince, 2025 UT App 80, the Utah Court of Appeals imposed sanctions even though counsel represented that an unlicensed law clerk used ChatGPT without the attorneys' knowledge, because the attorney who filed the document had a duty to verify the accuracy of the filing.
thelawlion

References
Find the full sanctions order
Check for later Utah cases
Compare Utah Rule 40 standards