Utah Lawyer Sanctioned for Submitting Court Brief with Fake ChatGPT Citations

Utah Lawyer Sanctioned for Using ChatGPT to Produce False Court Citations

A Utah appeals court has sanctioned attorney Richard Bednar after discovering that a court brief he filed contained fabricated legal citations generated by ChatGPT. The brief included references to a nonexistent case, raising serious concerns about the accuracy and integrity of the submissions.

False Citations Uncovered in Court Filing

Bednar, along with petitioner’s counsel Douglas Durbano, submitted a petition for interlocutory appeal. Upon review, the respondent’s counsel identified several false citations, including a case titled “Royer v Nelson”, which does not exist in any legal database. The respondent’s counsel noted the suspicious nature of the citations, stating parts of the petition appeared to be AI-generated, with quotes and cases unrelated to the subject matter.

Admission and Apology

Following the discovery, Bednar acknowledged the errors and issued an apology. During an April hearing, both Bednar and his attorney accepted responsibility, confirming that the fabricated legal authority came from ChatGPT. Bednar explained that an unlicensed law clerk drafted the brief and he failed to verify the accuracy before filing.

Further details revealed that Durbano was not involved in drafting the petition. The law clerk responsible, a law school graduate, was subsequently terminated from the firm. Bednar also committed to reimbursing any attorney fees related to the matter to make amends.

Court's Stance on AI Use in Legal Filings

The Utah court of appeals issued a statement emphasizing that AI can serve as a legal research tool but warned that attorneys have a continuing duty to verify the accuracy of their filings. The court highlighted that Bednar and his team fell short of their gatekeeping responsibilities when they submitted a petition containing false precedent generated by AI.

Sanctions Imposed

• Payment of the respondent’s attorney fees for the petition and hearing
• Refund to the client for time spent preparing the flawed filing and attending the hearing
• A $1,000 donation to Utah-based legal non-profit And Justice for All

This case serves as a clear reminder that while AI tools like ChatGPT can assist with legal research and drafting, attorneys must carefully review and confirm all information before submission to courts.

For legal professionals interested in learning more about responsible AI use in legal practice, resources and courses can be found at Complete AI Training.