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.
L003Under Utah state court decisions issued between 2023 and November 4, 2026, a Utah lawyer cannot avoid sanctions for submitting fabricated citations by asserting that an unlicensed law clerk used ChatGPT without the lawyer's knowledge.
L013In Garner, an attorney signed and filed a petition for permission to appeal an interlocutory order containing nonexistent citations generated by ChatGPT (including a fabricated decision titled Royer v. Nelson). When ordered to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed, counsel explained that the draft had been prepared by an unlicensed law clerk who used artificial intelligence.
L019The Utah Court of Appeals held that an attorney’s signature certifies that the lawyer has conducted a reasonable inquiry into the law under Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(b), a duty that remains non-delegable regardless of who prepared the initial draft or what research tool was used:
L022"While technology continues to evolve, attorneys must verify each source cited in their legal filings and 'must still read the case to ensure the excerpt is existing law to support their propositions and arguments.'"
L029"And as 'attorneys transition to the world of AI, the duty to check their sources and make a reasonable inquiry into existing law remains unchanged.'"
L036"And the signature of Mr. Bednar on the Petition served to 'certif[y] that to the best of [his] knowledge formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,' the 'legal contentions are warranted by existing law.' Utah R. App. P. 40(b)(2). A fake opinion is not 'existing law' that can support a party's legal contention."
L041The court also emphasized that filing fictitious citations constitutes an abuse of the judicial process regardless of whether counsel acted with contrite intentions after the fact:
L043"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."
L050While the supervising attorney's lack of actual knowledge did not prevent sanctions under Rule 40(c), it did factor into two specific aspects of the court's order:
L053Rule 3.3 Candor: The court declined to find a violation of Utah Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from "knowingly or recklessly" making false statements of law to a tribunal) because counsel's conduct fell short of the requisite intent standard.
L055Mitigation: The court treated counsel’s prompt acceptance of responsibility and lack of active deception (unlike lawyers who doubled down on fabricated citations) as mitigating factors when calibrating the financial penalty, which consisted of paying opposing counsel's attorney fees, refunding fees to the client, and paying $1,000 to the legal aid charity "And Justice for All".
L057For further background on how appellate proceedings unfolded in this case, see the local news coverage reporting on the hearing: Utah attorneys sanctioned by appeals court for using AI to write legal brief. This segment provides context on the Utah Court of Appeals' arguments and oral order concerning generative AI in court filings.
Provenance
Visible web search. Account type not separately established.
Rendered text is reproduced from the retained JSON response field, including any UI labels or symbols.
Original JSON SHA-256: 3961ea213a433548aa3e7ba653e976bea4c388358209edf57bb0d75f1c4eb9bc Transcript SHA-256: c44413b3846f8e9a4fb093a984b735b24cd476d19cf5b1b05aad462b8bfb5e3b