Gemini said Under 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. Stone River Law The controlling Utah state appellate authority directly on point is: Full Citation: Garner v. Kadince, Inc., 2025 UT App 80, 571 P.3d 812 (per curiam). Utah State Bar Relevant Facts and Procedural Posture In 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. Stone River Law + 1 Court's Analysis and Direct Quotes The 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: Justia Law "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.'" — Garner v. Kadince, Inc., 2025 UT App 80, ¶ 7, 571 P.3d 812, 815 (quoting Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443, 462 (S.D.N.Y. 2023)). Justia Law The court reiterated that the transition to generative AI does not diminish this baseline verification duty: "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.'" — Garner, 2025 UT App 80, ¶ 7, 571 P.3d 812, 815. Justia Law Addressing the responsibilities of counsel when signing court papers: "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." — Garner, 2025 UT App 80, ¶ 10, 571 P.3d 812, 815. Justia Law The 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: "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." — Garner, 2025 UT App 80, ¶ 12, 571 P.3d 812, 816. Justia Law Role of Lack of Knowledge in Sanctions While 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: Justia Law Rule 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. Mitigation: 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". For 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.