Published opinion, 22 May 2025 · source · PDF · 7 pages
Nelson , 2007 UT App 74, 156 P.3d 789” as an AI “hallucinated” case that does not exist anywhere other than on ChatGPT.2 ¶3 Concerned that the Petition contained citations to non - existent and inapposite cases, this court ordered Petitioner’s counsel to appear and show cause why they should not be sanctioned.
Barneck for the limited purpose of the OSC proceeding. Respondents’ counsel also attended the hearing but did not address the court. ¶5 Petitioner’s counsel acknowledged that the P etition contained fabricated legal authority, which was obtained from ChatGPT, and they accepted responsibility for the contents of the Petition. Petitioner’s counsel explained that the Petition had been prepared by an unlicensed law clerk, employed by their law firm, who used ChatGPT in the drafting of the P etition.
Petitioner’s counsel’s conduct has not been similarly egregious, and they have accepted responsibility for their misrepresentations to this court. ¶14 However, regardless of Petitioner’s counsel’ s contrition, harm was done as a result of their acts. Respondents’ counsel were required to expend additional resources researching the citations and source of the hallucinated legal authority . Valuable judicial resources were diverted from considering pending cases to addressing Petitioner’s counsel’s misrepresentations. ¶15 Opposing counsel cannot be required to independently verify the veracity of each citation in another’s court filings.
Garner v. Kadince 20250188-CA 7 2025 UT App 80 CONCLUSION ¶16 This court has considered the specific circumstances of this case and reviewed sanctions imposed by other jurisdictions for citing hallucinated authority. We believe that sanctions are appropriate here because Petitioner’s counsel failed to meet their obligations under rule 40 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure.