If you’ve ever trusted new technology to streamline your work, this case will resonate with you. The Utah Court of Appeals recently imposed a penalty on a local attorney after a legal brief included several fabricated case citations that appeared to be generated by artificial intelligence. It’s a clear reminder to double-check your sources when using AI tools.
This decision sets a precedent in Utah regarding the use of AI in legal filings. While employing artificial intelligence isn’t prohibited, the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure require that every citation be factual and accurate. The judges warned that relying solely on AI can lead to unintended errors, as these tools sometimes create details that simply aren’t there.
The matter involved attorneys Richard Bednar and Douglas Durban, who represented Matthew Garner in a petition contesting a ruling by the 3rd District Court. Opposing counsel noticed several non-existent or irrelevant case references, which raised suspicions about the involvement of AI, with some traces pointing to ChatGPT.
Bednar accepted responsibility for the oversight, agreeing to cover the fees incurred by the opposing legal team and to refund his client for the misleading petition. Additionally, he was instructed to contribute $1,000 to a local nonprofit that strives to offer equal access to justice. During the hearing, Bednar’s representative admitted that a law clerk had used ChatGPT, and that Bednar had inadvertently trusted the unverified citations.
The appellate judges, in their May 22 ruling, acknowledged the attorneys’ admission while emphasising the extra burden placed on the courts. Their decision underscores an important takeaway: using AI requires a careful review process to ensure that the integrity of legal documentation is maintained.
The controversy also stemmed from a broader contract dispute between Garner and Kadince, a software firm based in North Ogden. Garner, a former chief experience officer and shareholder, claimed he was pressured into giving up shares, while Kadince argued that Garner had breached his employment agreement by making unfounded claims.
In the end, the court denied Garner’s appeal and his attempt to file a new petition, meaning the original proceedings continue. This case serves as a practical lesson for legal professionals: while technology can speed up tasks, maintaining accuracy is paramount.
