Utah Court of Appeals
What happens when attorneys file AI-generated fake cases in Utah appellate courts? Garner v. Kadince Explained
Summary
The Utah Court of Appeals sanctioned attorneys who filed a petition containing AI-generated fake case citations, including a completely fabricated opinion cited as existing law. The attorneys acknowledged their error and accepted responsibility, explaining that an unlicensed law clerk used ChatGPT without their knowledge and they failed to verify the citations before filing.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals recently addressed a growing concern in legal practice: attorneys filing pleadings containing AI-generated fake legal precedent. In Garner v. Kadince, the court sanctioned attorneys who submitted a petition for interlocutory appeal containing fabricated case citations generated by ChatGPT.
Background and Facts
Petitioner’s counsel filed an interlocutory appeal petition that opposing counsel discovered contained multiple miscited or non-existent cases. Most notably, the petition cited “Royer v. Nelson, 2007 UTApp 74, 156 P.3d 789″ as legal authority—a case that existed only in ChatGPT and nowhere in actual legal databases. The attorneys later acknowledged that an unlicensed law clerk had used ChatGPT to draft portions of the petition without their knowledge, and they had failed to verify the citations before filing.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed whether filing pleadings with AI-hallucinated legal precedent violates Rule 40 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. This rule requires attorneys to certify that their legal contentions are “warranted by existing law” and mirrors Rule 11’s verification requirements at the trial level.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court emphasized that while AI can be beneficial for legal research, attorneys maintain a “gatekeeping role” to ensure accuracy. Following precedent from other jurisdictions like Mata v. Avianca, Inc., the court held that fake opinions are not “existing law” and cannot support legal contentions. The attorneys’ signatures certified compliance with Rule 40, which they admittedly failed to meet.
Practice Implications
The court imposed measured sanctions: attorney fees for opposing counsel, refund of client fees, and a $1,000 charitable donation. This case establishes that Utah courts will hold attorneys accountable for AI-generated content while recognizing degrees of culpability. Practitioners must develop firm policies regarding AI use and maintain independent verification protocols for all legal authority cited in pleadings.
Case Details
Case Name
Garner v. Kadince
Citation
2025 UT App 80
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20250188-CA
Date Decided
May 22, 2025
Outcome
Sanctions imposed
Holding
Attorneys violate Rule 40 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure when they file pleadings containing AI-generated fake legal precedent without proper verification.
Standard of Review
Not applicable – disciplinary proceeding
Practice Tip
Establish clear firm policies regarding AI use in legal research and always independently verify every citation before filing, regardless of the source or assistant who prepared the document.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.