Primerica Life Insurance Company v. Daniel Vett Finlayson; Michelle Johnson
D. Utah · Apr 22, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- D. Utah
- Record ID
- primerica-life-insurance-company-v-daniel-vett-finlayson-michelle-johnson-2026-0
- Observed outcome
- The Court issued a warning to counsel regarding the use of AI and denied the motion for leave to file an amended opposition.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Court issued a formal warning to counsel regarding the potential improper use of AI after counsel submitted filings containing fabricated case law and inaccurate quotations. The Court cautioned counsel to exercise greater care in future submissions but did not impose monetary or professional sanctions.
The Court reasoned that the initial opposition was riddled with unlocatable citations and inaccurate quotations, and counsel's inability to provide the source material upon request, combined with the nature of the errors, suggested improper AI use. The Court denied the motion to amend because the proposed filing did not offer new material evidence or address newly raised issues, and the Court already understood the legal arguments.
Westlaw-unlocatable cites are a red flag; verify every citation on the platform before it leaves the office.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated_case_law
- Hallucinated_quotes
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Contract
- Trial
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- unspecified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The matter was before the Court on a Motion for Summary Judgment and a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Memorandum in Opposition. The Court denied the motion to amend and granted in part and denied in part the motion for summary judgment.
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
The Court explicitly referenced the improper use of artificial intelligence.
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
- Verify every case citation and quotation against a reliable legal database like Westlaw or Lexis before filing.
- Maintain a record of the original source material for all cited authorities to facilitate rapid verification if challenged by the court.
- Implement a mandatory review process for any legal research or drafting assisted by generative AI tools.
- Ensure that any request to amend a filing due to research errors includes a clear explanation and justification for the necessity of the amendment.