Utah

informal

Summary

Utah has no formal ethics opinion but has binding statutory and case law overlays. Utah enacted the first US state generative AI law (S.B. 149, effective 2024-05-01, amended 2025) imposing disclosure obligations for high-risk AI client interactions. The Utah Court of Appeals sanctioned attorneys in Garner v. Kadince, 2025 UT App 80 for citing ChatGPT-fabricated cases. The Utah State Bar's only AI-specific publication is an informal 2023 article.

Applicable ABA Model Rules

Rule 1.1
Rule 1.2
Rule 1.4
Rule 1.5
Rule 1.6
Rule 3.3
Rule 5.1
Rule 5.3

Carrier Implications

ALPS is the Utah State Bar's endorsed carrier and has republished AI coverage warnings via the bar. Coverage gaps include intentional-act exclusions for blind AI reliance, UPL exclusions for client-facing AI, and confidentiality exclusions for data input into public AI platforms.

This summary is informational only. Verify the primary source before relying on this entry. Bar rules differ meaningfully by state. Consult a licensed attorney in your state.

Utah pulls in opposite directions: it launched the nation’s first legal regulatory sandbox (Office of Legal Services Innovation, 2020) and enacted the first US state generative AI law (S.B. 149, the Utah Artificial Intelligence Policy Act, effective 2024-05-01, amended in 2025 by S.B. 226 and S.B. 332). Yet the Utah State Bar has issued no formal ethics opinion on attorney AI use. The Bar’s only AI-specific publication is an informal 2023 article, “Using ChatGPT in Our Practices: Ethical Considerations,” supplemented by Utah Bar Journal commentary and the Utah State Bar AI Standing Committee’s educational outputs.

In Garner v. Kadince, 2025 UT App 80, the Utah Court of Appeals sanctioned attorney Richard Bednar for filing a petition with ChatGPT-fabricated citations, including the nonexistent “Royer v. Nelson,” after a law clerk used the tool without his knowledge. The court held that citation verification is non-delegable. Sanctions included attorney fees, a client fee refund, and a $1,000 payment to “and Justice for All.” The 2025 amendments to UAIPA narrowed disclosure obligations to “high-risk artificial intelligence interactions” involving sensitive information and substantive legal guidance.

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Utah firm: No safe harbor from a formal ethics opinion exists. The operative framework is ABA Formal Opinion 512 applied through Utah RPCs 1.1, 1.5, 1.6, 5.1, 5.3, and 3.3, plus UAIPA disclosure for high-risk client interactions, plus the Garner v. Kadince sanctions standard.

Last verified: April 24, 2026