Utah: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Utah firm: Utah has no formal ethics opinion on AI, so the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct apply directly, with ABA Formal Opinion 512 as persuasive guidance. In Garner v. Kadince (2025) the Court of Appeals sanctioned counsel for a ChatGPT-drafted petition with fabricated citations, stressing that “attorneys must verify each source cited in their legal filings.” Utah Rule of Evidence 707 (effective March 6, 2026) sets reliability requirements for machine-generated evidence offered without an expert. A firm running a client-facing AI tool may also wish to review Utah’s generative AI disclosure statute with counsel.

Start with: a written AI use policy, a citation verification step before every filing, and a vendor due-diligence record for each AI tool in use.

Using ChatGPT in Our Practices: Ethical Considerations (Utah State Bar, 2023)

Citation: Utah State Bar, “Using ChatGPT in Our Practices: Ethical Considerations” (2023). Primary source PDF.

Status: Informal educational guidance, not a formal ethics opinion. As of 2026-09-30, the Bar’s Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee has issued no opinion on AI; its most recent opinions (25-01 and 25-02) address other subjects.

What it states

• Client communication (Rules 1.2, 1.4): “Tell the client that you would like to use AI in their case. Explain the benefits and risks. And let them make the ultimate decision.”
• Confidentiality (Rule 1.6): share with AI only the information you would share with anyone else, “omitting names and other identifying information.”
• Fees (Rule 1.5): “Charge the client only for the time you spent using AI, not the time it would have taken you to do the work AI did for you.”
• Competence and supervision (Rules 1.1, 5.3): “under rule 5.3, we have a duty to supervise nonlawyer assistance, including services like AI.” “Treat AI-generated results like a draft from a law clerk,” and note that ChatGPT has produced fake cases “even when the lawyer asks ChatGPT to verify that the cases are real.”

Other Utah State Bar publications

The Bar’s AI Standing Committee publishes educational content, not ethics opinions. Examples include Nick Hafen’s five ethical principles video and article (November 2025), Bennett Borden and Victoria Carrington’s AI Tools Utah Lawyers Can Use Today (January 2026), and Prompt Engineering for Lawyers (June 2026). In February 2026 the Bar also republished the ALPS AI coverage article.

What federal courts in Utah require for AI use in filings

As of 2026-09-30, the District of Utah has no AI general order or local rule: its general orders through 26-007 and its Local Civil Rules (December 2025) contain no AI provision. The operative federal default is Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. The court has sanctioned AI-related citation errors case by case, including in Beus Gilbert v. BYU (September 2026). Firms may wish to review the assigned judge’s orders at the opening of each matter.

What Utah state courts require for AI use in filings

The Utah Supreme Court has not adopted a rule requiring AI disclosure in filings. Two developments bear on AI in Utah litigation:

• Utah Rule of Evidence 707. Rule 707, enacted by the Legislature through H.J.R. 26, “was made final and effective as of Friday, March 6, 2026” (Utah courts). When “machine-generated evidence” is offered without an expert and provides an inference, prediction, classification, or conclusion that would be subject to Rule 702(b) if an expert testified to it, the court may admit it only if it is helpful, based on sufficient facts or data, the product of reliable principles and methods, and reliably applied. It does not apply to “the output of a simple scientific instrument.”
• Appellate decisions. Garner v. Kadince (below) and Prisbrey v. Prisbrey (March 2026) address fabricated citations in Utah Court of Appeals briefing.

Garner v. Kadince, 2025 UT App 80

Citation: Garner v. Kadince, 2025 UT App 80, No. 20250188-CA (Utah Ct. App. May 22, 2025) (per curiam). Court’s opinion PDF.

Counsel filed a petition for interlocutory appeal citing cases that did not exist or did not support the propositions cited, including “Royer v. Nelson.” The petition “had been prepared by an unlicensed law clerk, employed by their law firm, who used ChatGPT,” counsel were not aware the clerk was using it, and the signing attorney “did not independently check the accuracy of the Petition before signing and filing it.” The firm had no AI policy. The court, noting that AI use in filings “has not been previously addressed by Utah courts,” stated that “attorneys must verify each source cited in their legal filings” and that “every attorney has an ongoing duty to review and ensure the accuracy of their court filings.”

Sanctions: The court found that counsel violated Rule 40 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. It ordered the signing attorney to pay respondents’ attorney fees for responding to the petition and attending the show-cause hearing, ordered counsel to refund to the client all fees charged for the petition within seven days, and ordered the signing attorney to donate $1,000 to “and Justice for all” within fourteen days. The court considered Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 and found that counsel’s conduct “fell short of the level of intent required by the rule.”

Significance for Utah firms: In Garner, a clerk’s undisclosed AI use and the absence of a firm AI policy did not excuse the signing attorney. Firms may wish to treat it as the scenario their supervision policy under Rule 5.3 and their verification step are meant to prevent.

Utah’s generative AI disclosure statute

Citation: Utah S.B. 149 (2024), the Artificial Intelligence Policy Act (bill; effective May 1, 2024), amended by S.B. 226 (bill) and S.B. 332 (2025). The disclosure provisions are now codified at Utah Code §§ 13-77-101 to -106 (“Generative Artificial Intelligence - Consumer Disclosures and Enforcement,” effective May 7, 2025). The separate Artificial Intelligence Policy Act chapter (Title 13, Chapter 72, which houses the Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy) “is repealed July 1, 2027” under § 63I-2-213; Chapter 77 is not on that repeal list.

What the statute requires:

• On request, in consumer transactions (§ 13-77-103(1)). A supplier using generative AI to interact with an individual in a consumer transaction must disclose that the individual is interacting with AI and not a human “if the individual asks or otherwise prompts the supplier,” and the request must be “clear and unambiguous.”
• High-risk interactions in regulated occupations (§ 13-77-103(2)). “An individual providing services in a regulated occupation” must prominently disclose AI use in a “high-risk artificial intelligence interaction.” A high-risk interaction involves “(a) the collection of sensitive personal information” or “(b) the provision of personalized recommendations, advice, or information that could reasonably be relied upon to make significant personal decisions,” which includes legal advice or services. A “regulated occupation” is one that “is regulated by the Department of Commerce” and requires a license or state certification (§ 13-77-101(8)).
• Safe harbor (§ 13-77-104). A person is not subject to enforcement if its generative AI “clearly and conspicuously discloses” at the outset and throughout the interaction that it is generative AI, is not human, or is an AI assistant.
• Enforcement (§ 13-77-105). The Division of Consumer Protection may impose “an administrative fine of up to $2,500 for each violation,” and a person who violates an administrative or court order issued under the chapter “is subject to a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each violation.”

Application to law firms: The practice of law in Utah is governed by the Utah Supreme Court under Article VIII, Section 4 of the Utah Constitution, not by the Department of Commerce, so on the statute’s face the regulated-occupation duty may not reach lawyers. Whether the consumer-transaction duty applies to legal services has not been decided. A firm that runs a client-facing chatbot or intake assistant may wish to ask counsel whether either duty applies and, in any event, to consider the safe-harbor disclosure, which also serves the client-communication duties under Rule 1.4.

Utah legal services regulatory sandbox

The Utah legal regulatory sandbox, launched by the Utah Supreme Court, authorizes nontraditional legal services providers; per the Office of Legal Services Innovation, those include “technology-based services such as AI.” Operations are now “housed within the Utah State Bar.” On May 15, 2026 the Supreme Court announced Phase 3, “with a focus on sunsetting the Sandbox and institutionalizing reform efforts”; the application cut-off was May 29, 2026, and the sandbox is set to sunset on August 14, 2027. As of August 2026 the office reported six regulated entities. A traditional 5-50 attorney firm is not in the sandbox.

What AI-related rules are pending in Utah?

No AI rule proposal for attorney filings is pending before the Utah Supreme Court as of 2026-09-30. Items on the horizon:

• The Artificial Intelligence Policy Act chapter (Title 13, Chapter 72) is scheduled for repeal on July 1, 2027 unless the Legislature extends it.
• The sandbox is scheduled to sunset on August 14, 2027, with the Supreme Court’s Ad Hoc Regulatory Reform Committee assessing which reforms to keep.
• The Utah and North Carolina Attorneys General announced a bipartisan AI Task Force in November 2025, in partnership with AI developers including OpenAI and Microsoft. It is not an attorney-regulation body.

How do malpractice carriers in Utah treat AI use?

ALPS is the Utah State Bar’s endorsed legal malpractice carrier and describes itself as “the nation’s largest direct writer of lawyers’ malpractice insurance.” Its August 2025 article, which the Bar republished in February 2026, states that “lawyers’ professional liability (LPL) policies typically do not exclude coverage for claims alleging negligence arising as a result of the use of generative AI.” It discusses three risk areas: malpractice involving AI output (including that a deliberate decision to blindly accept AI output “might also trigger a policy’s intentional act exclusion”), AI interfacing with clients or the public (where unauthorized-practice exclusions may apply), and confidentiality and data security. No filed AI exclusion on an admitted-market LPL form has been located.

What does my Utah malpractice carrier ask about AI at renewal?

No Utah-specific AI application items published by ALPS were located. Firms that want to be ready for questions may wish to have on hand a written AI use policy, a citation verification protocol, vendor due-diligence records, and, for any client-facing AI tool, a record of how the firm handles AI disclosure. Confirm with the carrier or broker which policy (professional liability or cyber) would respond to an AI-related data exposure.

What documentation should a Utah firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy (Utah RPCs 5.1, 5.3; ABA Op 512). Approved tools, a bar on submitting unverified AI output to courts or clients, attorney review before any AI work product is filed or sent, and which tools may receive client-identifying information. The firm in Garner had no AI policy when the problem arose.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification protocol (Utah RPCs 1.1, 3.3; Garner). A written procedure requiring every AI-generated citation to be verified against a primary source before any filing or client deliverable, recording the tool used and the verifying attorney.
3. (Owner: managing partner) Client-facing AI review. For any client-facing chatbot or AI assistant, document how it discloses that it is AI, and whether counsel has advised on the Chapter 77 disclosure duties.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) Vendor due diligence record (Utah RPC 1.6; ABA Op 512). For each AI tool: whether the vendor trains on inputs, retention terms, and whether the firm has an enterprise agreement with data protection commitments.
2. (Owner: firm administrator) Attorney and staff training log (Utah RPCs 1.1, 5.1, 5.3). Date, attendees, and content covering hallucination risk, candor under Rule 3.3, the Garner facts, and firm policy.
3. (Owner: managing partner + billing partner) Engagement letter AI provision (Utah RPCs 1.4, 1.5, 1.6). Categories of firm AI use, data-handling commitments, and the firm’s billing approach for AI-assisted work consistent with the Bar’s 2023 guidance.

Months four to six (per-matter discipline)

These are recurring practices, not one-time projects: each new matter exercises them.

1. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Judge-specific AI order check (Utah RPC 3.3; Fed. R. Civ. P. 11). At each new matter, review the assigned judge’s orders for AI requirements, and in evidentiary planning consider whether any machine-generated evidence will need a Rule 707 showing.
2. (Owner: managing partner) Periodic review of Utah developments (Utah RPC 1.1): Utah State Bar AI publications, Chapter 77 enforcement, and the July 2027 repeal date for Chapter 72.

We are building practitioner resources for firms working through this list. The newsletter covers new resources as they ship.