Garner v. Kadince
Utah Court of Appeals · Utah Ct. App. · Utah bar guidance
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Garner v. Kadince, 2025 UT App 80, No. 20250188-CA (Utah Ct. App. May 22, 2025) (per curiam)
- Decided
- May 22, 2025
Summary
Attorneys Douglas M. Durbano and Richard A. Bednar filed a petition for interlocutory appeal that cited cases that did not exist or did not support the propositions cited, including "Royer v. Nelson." Counsel explained at the order-to-show-cause hearing that the petition had been prepared by an unlicensed law clerk employed by their firm who used ChatGPT, that they were not aware the clerk was using ChatGPT, and that Mr. Bednar did not independently check the petition's accuracy before signing and filing it. The firm had no AI policy and had begun one after receiving notice of the order to show cause.
- AI tool:
- ChatGPT
- Sanction amount:
- Attorney fees + client fee refund + $1,000 to access-to-justice nonprofit
What sanction did the court impose?
The court found that petitioner's counsel violated Rule 40 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. It ordered Mr. Bednar to pay respondents' attorney fees for responding to the petition and attending the OSC hearing, ordered petitioner's counsel to refund to the client all fees charged for the petition within seven days, and ordered Mr. Bednar to pay $1,000 as a donation to 'and Justice for all' within fourteen days. The court considered whether counsel violated Utah Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 and found that their conduct 'fell short of the level of intent required by the rule.' Per curiam opinion; the court noted that the use of AI in legal filings 'has not been previously addressed by Utah courts.'
Why does Garner v. Kadince matter for law firms using AI?
Garner v. Kadince is the first Utah appellate opinion addressing AI-fabricated citations; the court observed that the use of AI in legal filings “has not been previously addressed by Utah courts.” Its central statement: “The legal profession must be cautious of AI due to its tendency to hallucinate information. … While technology continues to evolve, attorneys must verify each source cited in their legal filings.” The court added that “every attorney has an ongoing duty to review and ensure the accuracy of their court filings,” and found that counsel “fell short of their gatekeeping responsibilities.”
The facts matter for firm governance. The petition was drafted by an unlicensed law clerk using ChatGPT, the signing attorney did not check it, and the firm had no AI policy. Firms reviewing their own supervision of nonlawyer staff may wish to treat this as the scenario their AI policy and verification step are meant to prevent.