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?
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.
L004Limit 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.
L008Based 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: Garner v. Kadince, 2025 UT App 80 (Utah Ct. App. May 22, 2025). I did not find any other Utah state appellate decision during that period holding that a lawyer can avoid sanctions by claiming a law clerk used ChatGPT without the lawyer's knowledge.
L013No. In Garner v. Kadince, the attorneys explained that an unlicensed law clerk used ChatGPT without the attorneys' knowledge, but the Utah Court of Appeals nevertheless imposed sanctions because the signing attorney failed to verify the filing.
L025“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. 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.
L037“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.
L056“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.
L061“Although the court appreciates Petitioner’s counsel’s acceptance of responsibility for their conduct, filing pleadings or other legal documents without taking the necessary care in their preparation is an abuse of the judicial system and subject to sanctions.”¶ 12.
L066I found no Utah state court decision from 2023-Nov. 4, 2026 holding that an attorney can avoid sanctions by explaining that a law clerk used ChatGPT without the attorney's knowledge. The Utah Court of Appeals' decision in Garner v. Kadince, 2025 UT App 80, points the other way: the court accepted that the law clerk used ChatGPT without the attorneys' knowledge, but still held that the attorneys had a duty to verify the filing and imposed sanctions.