Garner v. Kadince

Garner v. Kadince, Utah Court of Appeals, May 22, 2025, 2025 UT App 80, No. 20250188-CA. Copy of primary document: `~/workspace/goals/ai-sanctions-case-monitoring/files/sources/D-67-garner-v-kadince.pdf`.

An unlicensed law clerk employed by the petitioner's law firm used ChatGPT to draft the petition for interlocutory appeal, which contained fabricated legal authority. Douglas M. Durbano and Richard A. Bednar accepted responsibility; Durbano was not involved in drafting, but Bednar signed and filed the petition without independently checking its accuracy. The firm had no AI policy, formal or informal, and had not addressed the use of AI at all.

Violation of the certification and verification duties under Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 40, with sanctions under the court's inherent authority. Sanctions: Bednar must pay the respondents' attorney fees for responding to the petition and attending the OSC hearing (respondents' counsel to provide an itemized statement within 10 days, Bednar to pay within 10 days of receipt); petitioner's counsel must refund to the petitioner all fees charged and paid for the petition or related work within 7 days (and refrain from submitting or collecting unpaid bills); and Bednar must pay $1,000 as a donation to "and Justice for all" within 14 days and file proof of payment. Source URL: the primary PDF (Charlotin documents archive: /documents/397/Garner_v._Kadince_UT_AC_USA_2025.pdf, https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/397/Garner_v._Kadince_UT_AC_USA_2025.pdf).

Adopt a written firm policy on generative AI and train everyone, including nonlawyer staff, on it. Partners must independently verify any filing they sign, regardless of who drafted it. Never let an unlicensed employee submit AI-drafted work under your signature unchecked.

• damiencharlotin.com: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/397/Garner_v._Kadince_UT_AC_USA_2025.pdf