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 precedent decided between 2023 and November 4, 2026, a lawyer cannot avoid sanctions for fabricated AI citations by pointing to a subordinate or law clerk's unauthorized use of ChatGPT.
L004Bar Opinions, Court Orders, and Sanctions Cases on Lawyer AI Use
L012In Garner, an attorney signed and filed an interlocutory appeal petition that contained fictitious case citations (specifically citing a nonexistent case, Royer v. Nelson) generated by an unlicensed law clerk using ChatGPT. The Utah Court of Appeals held that an attorney retains a non-delegable gatekeeping duty under Rule 40 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure to independently verify the accuracy and validity of every citation submitted to the court under their signature.
L018"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.' ... 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.'"
L019— Garner v. Kadince, Inc., 2025 UT App 80, ¶ 7, 571 P.3d 812, 814 (quoting Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443, 448 (S.D.N.Y. 2023)).
L024"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); see also Mata, 678 F. Supp. 3d at 461 ('A fake opinion is not "existing law" and citation to a fake opinion does not provide a non-frivolous ground for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law, or for establishing new law.')."
L025— Garner v. Kadince, Inc., 2025 UT App 80, ¶ 10, 571 P.3d 812, 815.
L030"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."
L031— Garner v. Kadince, Inc., 2025 UT App 80, ¶ 12, 571 P.3d 812, 815.
L036Blaming a clerk does not defeat liability for sanctions under Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 40 (or its trial-level counterpart, Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 11) because the supervising attorney's certification attaches at the moment of signing.
L042In Garner, because counsel immediately conceded the error, admitted the law clerk's unverified draft preparation, and apologized rather than doubling down or attempting to deceive the court, the Court of Appeals found they did not act with the culpable state of mind required for a violation of Utah Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a) (candor toward the tribunal).
L045Nevertheless, monetary sanctions were still imposed under Rule 40: counsel was required to pay opposing counsel's attorney fees, refund all client fees billed for the defective petition, and pay a $1,000 sanction to the legal-aid non-profit and Justice for all.
L046Bar Opinions, Court Orders, and Sanctions Cases on Lawyer AI Use
L048For local court coverage of this proceeding, see this KSL News Report on Utah AI Citations. This report provides contemporaneous local broadcast coverage detailing the Utah Court of Appeals' show-cause proceedings in Garner and the judicial reaction to AI-generated hallucinations in Utah filings.