Gemini said

A Utah lawyer cannot avoid sanctions simply by blaming an unsupervised law clerk who used ChatGPT.   
Stone River Law

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed this scenario directly in its precedent-setting decision, Garner v. Kadince, Inc., 2025 UT App 80.   
Justia Law

The Ruling in Garner v. Kadince (2025 UT App 80)

In Garner, an attorney filed a petition for interlocutory appeal citing nonexistent cases—including a fabricated decision captioned "Royer v. Nelson"—which ChatGPT had hallucinated.   
Stone River Law

When ordered to show cause, counsel explained that an unlicensed law clerk drafted the brief using ChatGPT without the supervising attorney's knowledge, and the attorney signed and submitted the filing without reading or verifying the citations.   
Stone River Law

The Utah Court of Appeals rejected this defense and imposed sanctions under Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 40 (the appellate counterpart to Utah R. Civ. P. 11):   
Bar Opinions, Court Orders, and Sanctions Cases on Lawyer AI Use

Payment of Opposing Counsel’s Fees: The signing attorney was ordered to pay the opposing party's legal fees incurred in responding to the petition and attending the show-cause hearing.   
Justia Law

Mandatory Client Refund: Counsel was required to refund all fees billed to the client for the defective petition.   
Bar Opinions, Court Orders, and Sanctions Cases on Lawyer AI Use

Charitable Penalty: Counsel was ordered to pay a $1,000 sanction to the legal aid non-profit and Justice for all.   
Bar Opinions, Court Orders, and Sanctions Cases on Lawyer AI Use

Why Shifting Blame to a Subordinate Fails

Non-Delegable Duty to Verify (Rule 11 / Appellate Rule 40)

Under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) and Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(b), an attorney's signature on a court filing serves as an affirmative certification that, after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, the legal contentions are warranted by existing law. Submitting fictitious caselaw is a per se failure to conduct a reasonable inquiry. The duty to verify that cited precedent actually exists rests entirely on the signing attorney, not on the clerk who prepared the draft.   
Justia Law
+ 1

Duty to Supervise Nonlawyer Assistance (Rule 5.3)

Under Utah Rule of Professional Conduct 5.3, lawyers with managerial or direct supervisory authority over nonlawyers (including law clerks, paralegals, and interns) must make reasonable efforts to ensure the subordinate's conduct conforms to the professional obligations of the lawyer. Relying on work prepared by a clerk without independently checking citations or establishing clear internal policies governing generative AI is considered a breach of this supervisory duty.   
Stone River Law

Technological Competence (Rule 1.1)

Utah Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 requires competent representation, which includes understanding the risks and capabilities of relevant technology. In Garner, the court observed that while AI tools can assist workflow, the tendency of Large Language Models to hallucinate nonexistent authority is well-documented (citing seminal cases such as Mata v. Avianca). Ignorance of how staff members use AI tools does not insulate supervisory counsel from liability.   
Justia Law
+ 1

The Sole Mitigation: Negating "Knowing" Bad Faith

While blaming a clerk does not avoid civil or procedural sanctions, candidly disclosing the mistake can limit professional discipline:

In Garner, the court noted that because the attorneys immediately acknowledged the error, accepted responsibility, and had not acted with subjective intent to deceive, their conduct did not rise to the level of a knowing or reckless false statement under Utah Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a) (Candor Toward the Tribunal).   
Bar Opinions, Court Orders, and Sanctions Cases on Lawyer AI Use

As a result, the court declined to refer the attorney for formal disbarment or suspension proceedings, limiting the remedy to monetary sanctions, client fee forfeiture, and corrective penalties.

In Utah courts, a law clerk's unauthorized use of ChatGPT can explain how an error occurred, but it does not relieve the signing lawyer of personal responsibility or sanctions for submitting fictitious citations.   
Stone River Law

To take this further:
Draft an internal law firm generative AI policy
Compare Utah AI sanctions with Mata v. Avianca