Skip to content

Incident Tracker / United States (state)

Garner v. Kadince, Inc., 2025 UT App 80

·Utah Court of Appeals·US-STATESanctions

In the Utah Court of Appeals, petitioner's counsel filed a brief containing ChatGPT-fabricated citations, including a non-existent 'Royer v. Nelson', violating appellate rule 40. The court sanctioned attorney Richard Bednar, ordering him to donate $1,000 to a legal-aid charity and to pay the respondents' fees and refund his client.

Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Date
2025-05-22
Who used the AI
Not recorded
AI tool
ChatGPT
Conduct
Petitioner's counsel filed a petition containing fabricated authority generated by ChatGPT, including a non-existent 'Royer v. Nelson, 2007 UT App 74'. After an order to show cause, the court found the filing violated appellate rule 40. Counsel Richard Bednar acknowledged the fabricated authority came from ChatGPT.
Outcome
Sanctions
Penalty
US$1,000
Regulatory outcome
No separate regulatory disposition recorded
Status
Verified against listed sources
Last checked
2026-09-11

What was fabricated or misused

  • Royer v. Nelson, 2007 UT App 74, 156 P.3d 789 — AI “hallucinated” case that did not exist anywhere other than ChatGPT
  • Other citations and quotations in the petition appeared AI-generated or wholly unrelated; the opinion did not enumerate them

What the court said

“As the primary example, Respondents’ counsel pointed to the citation to “Royer v. Nelson, 2007 UT App 74, 156 P.3d 789” as an AI “hallucinated” case that does not exist anywhere other than on ChatGPT.”
Utah Court of Appeals, [2]
“Petitioner’s counsel acknowledged that the Petition contained fabricated legal authority, which was obtained from ChatGPT, and they accepted responsibility for the contents of the Petition.”
Utah Court of Appeals, [5]
“However, we emphasize that every attorney has an ongoing duty to review and ensure the accuracy of their court filings.”
Utah Court of Appeals, [8]
“Opposing counsel cannot be required to independently verify the veracity of each citation in another’s court filings.”
Utah Court of Appeals, [15]

Timeline

  1. Order-to-show-cause hearing held before the Utah Court of Appeals.
  2. Separate order resolved the petition and request to amend.
  3. Per curiam opinion found a rule 40 violation and imposed sanctions.

Why this case matters

The Utah appeal is a state appellate counterpart to Park v Kim and Gauthier. It involved a law clerk's ChatGPT use, not a lawyer typing the prompt, yet the signature still certified that the legal contentions rested on existing law. The court distinguished cases such as Mata, where lawyers persisted longer, and set sanctions that repaired case-specific harm: fees for the response, client refund and a legal-aid donation. The record helps separate negligent supervision from later concealment.

Practice note

Before signing an appellate petition, the attorney of record should verify each cited case in an official reporter or database and confirm that quoted language exists. Firms also need an AI policy for clerks and paralegals before filings are drafted, not after an order to show cause. Rule 40 treats the signature as the certification.

Primary sources for this incident

Related regulation records for this incident

No related regulation record has been linked to this incident yet.

Similar incidents on the record

  • State v. Coleman, 2026-Ohio-965 (Ohio Ct. App., 11th Dist.)2026-03-20 · Ohio Court of Appeals, Eleventh Appellate District · SanctionsAn Ohio appellate court fined a criminal-appeal attorney $2,000, removed him as counsel, struck his reopening application, and referred him to the Ohio Office of Disciplinary Counsel after his staff's ChatGPT use produc…
  • Robert Dastou v. Kathryn Holmes, No. 2381CV02212 (Mass. Super. Ct.)2025-07-16 · Massachusetts Superior Court · SanctionsA Massachusetts Superior Court sanctioned a defense attorney who used ChatGPT to 'format' filings, producing motions in limine and jury instructions riddled with hallucinated cases, a fake quotation, and a fictitious le…
  • State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Reeves, 2026 OK 372026-05-27 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · WarningThe Oklahoma Supreme Court publicly reprimanded attorney Matthew Reeves under reciprocal-discipline rules after he admitted using ChatGPT to fabricate five citations in federal filings in Johnson v. Dunn — conduct alrea…
  • Mezu v. Mezu (Md. App. Ct. 2025), No. 361 Sept. Term 20252025-10-29 · Appellate Court of Maryland · Regulatory referralMaryland's intermediate appellate court referred an attorney to the state Attorney Grievance Commission after his client's brief cited multiple fictitious ChatGPT-generated cases and he conceded he routinely did not rea…

Cite this record

SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Garner v. Kadince, Inc., 2025 UT App 80”, safelegalai.com/tracker/garner-v-kadince (accessed 2026-09-16). Data: CC BY 4.0.

Report an issue with this record →