Beus Gilbert PLLC v. Brigham Young University
U.S. District Court, District of Utah · D. Utah · Utah bar guidance
Conduct
University's counsel filed briefing drafted with ClearBrief, Claude, ChatGPT, and Gemini that cited a nonexistent case and misstated law.
Consequence
$2,000 plus two AI-ethics CLEs for the drafter, $1,000 for the co-counsel who did not review; despite an errata filed before the show-cause order and a fee refund.
Lesson
Self-correction and fee refunds reduce but do not avoid Rule 11 sanctions, and co-counsel who skipped review is sanctioned too.
Verified September 28, 2026
- Citation
- Beus Gilbert PLLC v. Brigham Young Univ., No. 2:12-cv-00970-TS, Memorandum Decision and Order Imposing Sanctions (D. Utah Sept. 9, 2026) (Stewart, J.), ECF No. 385
- Decided
- September 9, 2026
Summary
Counsel for defendant Brigham Young University, Chad Pehrson and Robert S. Clark, filed briefing that "appeared to be AI-hallucinated": it included a citation to a nonexistent case and several citations to cases that do not support, or are unrelated to, the stated propositions, some of which misstated the controlling law. Before the court issued an order to show cause, Pehrson filed a notice of errata correcting twelve errors, and counsel refunded opposing counsel's fees caused by the errors. At the September 2, 2026 hearing, Pehrson said he drafted the briefing and "relied on several AI models in drafting the briefing, including ClearBrief, Claude, ChatGPT, and Gemini." Clark explained his failure to review the filings before submission and said he had enrolled in a CLE course on AI in the legal profession.
- AI tool:
- ClearBrief, Claude, ChatGPT, and Gemini, named as included among the models used (drafting attorney's statement at the show-cause hearing)
- Sanction amount:
- $2,000 penalty and two AI-ethics CLE courses for attorney Chad Pehrson; $1,000 penalty for attorney Robert S. Clark; both payable to the court with proof of payment within 30 days
What sanction did the court impose?
District Judge Ted Stewart found that both attorneys violated Rule 11(b) by failing to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the existence and accuracy of the authority in briefing "riddled with AI-generated errors." He ordered Pehrson to complete two CLE courses on the ethical use of AI within six months and to pay a $2,000 penalty, and ordered Clark to pay a $1,000 penalty, both to the court with proof of payment within thirty days. The order notes that counsel had already reimbursed opposing counsel's fees.
Why does Beus Gilbert PLLC v. Brigham Young University matter for law firms using AI?
Beus Gilbert is useful for its facts about tools. The drafting attorney did not rely on a single consumer chatbot: he described using “several AI models,” including ClearBrief, Claude, ChatGPT, and Gemini, and the resulting briefing still contained a nonexistent case and citations that did not support the propositions stated. The court stated that it “takes misuse of AI, and the harm flowing therefrom, very seriously,” and located the violation in Rule 11(b)‘s reasonable-inquiry requirement.
The order also illustrates how courts are weighing remediation. Counsel filed a notice of errata correcting twelve errors before any show-cause order issued, and before the hearing counsel reported that they had refunded the opposing side’s fees. The court noted that counsel had already reimbursed opposing counsel’s fees and entered no fee award, but still imposed penalties and CLE, citing Rule 11(c)(4).
The sanction on Clark, who did not draft the briefing, tracks other 2026 decisions such as Withers v. City of Aberdeen: an attorney responsible for a filing who does not review it shares responsibility for its contents. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider recording who reviewed each brief’s citations and when, separately from who drafted it.
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- Verify outputs even when several AI tools are used in combination. The drafting attorney named four tools used in drafting, and the briefing still contained a nonexistent case.
- Document review by every attorney responsible for a filing. Clark did not draft the briefing and was still sanctioned $1,000 for failing to review it before filing.
- Consider prompt self-correction: an errata identifying the errors before the show-cause order and a refund of opposing counsel's fees did not prevent sanctions.