SALT LAKE CITY — A Utah lawyer has been sanctioned by the state’s court of appeals after he used artificial intelligence to draft legal documents that included fabricated citations. The case highlights growing concerns regarding the use of AI in legal practices.
Richard Bednar was penalized after a review of a petition he filed revealed multiple false references. The scrutiny began when the opposing counsel identified inaccuracies in the brief, which had been prepared by a law clerk under Bednar’s supervision.
Court documents indicate that Bednar, along with fellow attorney Douglas Durbano, filed a petition seeking an interlocutory appeal. Upon examination, the respondent’s counsel discovered that several citations did not correspond to any actual legal precedents. Specifically, the brief mentioned a case titled “Royer v. Nelson,” which could not be found in any legal database and appeared to be generated by ChatGPT.
During a hearing, Bednar accepted responsibility for the errors, acknowledging that the petition contained fabricated legal authorities derived from AI. He expressed regret over the situation and indicated that he had not independently verified the accuracy of the brief before submission.
Bednar’s attorney attributed the inaccuracies to an unlicensed law clerk, who reportedly drafted the document without proper oversight. This clerk, despite being a law school graduate, was terminated from the law firm following the incident, according to reports.
As part of the sanctions, Bednar has agreed to pay the opposing counsel’s legal fees related to the case, refund fees to his client concerning the time spent preparing the flawed filing, and make a donation of $1,000 to the Utah nonprofit organization And Justice for All.
The Utah court of appeals issued a statement underscoring the importance of maintaining rigorous standards in legal filings. It affirmed that while the integration of AI in legal practices is anticipated to grow, attorneys are expected to uphold their responsibility to ensure the accuracy and validity of all court documents submitted.
The case serves as a cautionary tale for legal professionals navigating the evolving landscape of technology use in their practice. As artificial intelligence tools become more prevalent, the legal community faces ongoing challenges in maintaining the integrity of its processes.
This article was automatically generated by Open AI, and may contain inaccuracies. Requests for retractions or corrections can be sent to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.