Garner v. Kadince
CA Utah · May 22, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA Utah
- Record ID
- garner-v-kadince-2025-05-22
- Observed outcome
- The court imposed three sanctions: payment of Respondents' attorney fees, a full refund of fees charged to the client for the petition, and a $1,000 donation to a legal aid organization.
- Known monetary consequence
- $1,000
Why this matter warrants attention
The court sanctioned Petitioner's counsel for filing a petition containing AI-generated fake legal precedent. The sanctions included an order to pay Respondents' attorney fees, a requirement to refund all fees charged to the client for the defective petition, and a $1,000 charitable donation.
The panel (Per Curiam) emphasized that the conduct, while not malicious, still diverted judicial resources and imposed unnecessary burdens on the opposing party. Unlike Mata or Hayes, the attorneys in this case quickly admitted the issue and cooperated, which the court acknowledged. Nonetheless, the submission of fabricated law—especially under counsel's signature—breaches core duties of candor and verification, warranting formal sanctions. The court warned that Utah’s judiciary cannot be expected to verify every citation and must be able to trust lawyers to do so
Ban unsupervised AI use by non-lawyer staff and require attorney review of every filing before submission.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Contract
- Appellate
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- ChatGPT
- Known monetary consequence
- $1,000
- Procedural posture
- The matter was brought before the Utah Court of Appeals via an Order to Show Cause (OSC) regarding potential sanctions for the submission of fabricated legal authority.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
Counsel admitted the petition contained fabricated authority obtained from ChatGPT.
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Implement a formal firm-wide policy governing the use of generative AI in legal research and drafting.
- Require mandatory attorney review and verification of all citations and legal propositions generated by AI tools before filing.
- Establish supervision protocols for non-lawyer staff to ensure AI-assisted work product is vetted by licensed counsel.
- Maintain a record of the verification process for all legal authorities cited in court submissions.