Gemini said

Under 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.   
Bar Opinions, Court Orders, and Sanctions Cases on Lawyer AI Use

The governing authority on this question is Garner v. Kadince, Inc., 2025 UT App 80, 571 P.3d 812 (Utah Ct. App. May 22, 2025) (per curiam).   
Utah State Bar

Scott M. Matheson Courthouse, Salt Lake City. Source: Jordan McAlister / Getty Images
Key Precedent and Direct Quotes

In 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.   
CaseRead.ai
+ 1

The Non-Delegable Duty to Verify:

"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.'"
— 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)).   
Justia Law

Responsibility Under the Attorney's Signature:

"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.')."
— Garner v. Kadince, Inc., 2025 UT App 80, ¶ 10, 571 P.3d 812, 815.   
Utah State Bar

Sanctions are Mandatory Regardless of Lack of Personal Malice:

"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 v. Kadince, Inc., 2025 UT App 80, ¶ 12, 571 P.3d 812, 815.   
Utah State Bar

Practical Effect on Sanctions

Blaming 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.   
Justia Law

However, how the attorney reacts to the discovery does affect the severity of the sanction:   
Justia Law

In 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).   
Scribd

Nevertheless, 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.   
Bar Opinions, Court Orders, and Sanctions Cases on Lawyer AI Use

For 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.

Want to review the specific supervisory requirements for AI use under Utah Rule of Professional Conduct 5.3?
Yes