[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_25":26},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_27":28,"_29":30},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[31,75],{"_32":33,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":39,"_40":41,"_42":43,"_44":45,"_46":47,"_48":49,"_50":51,"_52":53,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6579437,"mediaKeyId","3085810-0ef230ed5255584ea5e6fd81c0d191ff","parentId",3085810,"title","Court of Appeals holds show‑cause hearing after petition contained AI‑generated, nonexistent authorities","audioSeconds",3744,"startMs",3750000,"endMs",5286,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3085810-0ef230ed5255584ea5e6fd81c0d191ff&start=3750&end=5","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3085810-0ef230ed5255584ea5e6fd81c0d191ff/thumbnail_3750000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6579437/Utah/Court-of-Appeals-holds-showcause-hearing-after-petition-contained-AIgenerated-nonexistent-authorities","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6579437-9de8bf6c3d6d5b7cab46b49115140241/orig.mp4?Expires=1769819610&Signature=H5KMY3fkVZo6wJShWgLq6Ggx3W2DDGq80Uthd3RdEtd-yCOMBrhpsuU4XHa0xoFIcXbm1L2yJjJSnbLZJ5is0tNY7L--muJ81hm4cIcg0GO5106gdiQP-5VZNrGMmJ5PJcv9gvdhFMg-0IEftn05LzQ7tYNc3Gf4QKVIjF7ASEPOCJFMpoWN5lHQ3SNzJ8Xrg-HkCLDQ8McvAEv2vZWSLJGAwe2phE2f~7zymfcasW7KOOFc-5gFc~VfKMSPOJUTD~G5Hs1Du2twtop3h-UJ7DOrH8RGnzD~q4Jr8lbzs-EmCxwrETOuecxbeFp67~wIgI0FC0LvZsaSYrP576QSeA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Utah Court of Appeals","date","2025-04-22T00:00:00Z","article","A three-judge panel of the Utah Court of Appeals held an Order to Show Cause hearing after a petition for interlocutory relief filed in Gardner v. Cadence included case citations that do not exist or that were cited to support propositions they do not actually hold. Counsel for the petition's filers acknowledged that a law clerk used ChatGPT to draft portions of the filing and that the firm failed to verify the authority before filing. The court said it would take the matter under advisement.

\"This filing was a serious mistake,\" Matthew Barnett told the panel on behalf of respondents to the show‑cause order, explaining that the petition bore the name of Douglas D'Urbano but was signed and filed by Richard Bednar. Barnett said Bednar had not reviewed every citation and that a law clerk had used ChatGPT to draft portions of the petition. \"He did not know that AI had been used to generate anything in connection with the brief until after the fact,\" Barnett said.

Judges on the panel — identified in the record as Judge Michelle Christensen Forster, Judge Gregory Orme and Judge Amy Oliver for a different matter earlier in the session — repeatedly stressed the judiciary's reliance on counsel's candor and the difficulty courts face in policing every citation. \"We depend very much on the honor system of those attorneys who practice before us,\" one judge said, adding that fabricated authorities pose a distinct and serious problem for the judiciary.

Opposing counsel accepted the firm's prompt offer to make the responding party whole and said the offer to pay attorney fees incurred in responding to the defective petition remained on the table. The petitioners' counsel told the court the firm had adopted a formal policy for future filings that involve cited authorities.

The hearing record identifies at least one non‑existent case, Royer v. Nelson, cited in the petition; counsel said the name corresponds only to a table citation in another state's database and provides no substantive support for the petitioners' propositions. The panel noted that courts around the country have sometimes imposed modest monetary sanctions in similar circumstances and asked the attorneys to address whether a sanction beyond making opposing counsel whole would be appropriate. Counsel said petitioners would not charge such expenses to their client and that the attorneys would assume responsibility for any sanctions or fee awards.

The panel also questioned whether the conduct rose to negligence or to a higher mens‑rea standard such as recklessness or willful misconduct. Counsel for the respondents urged the court to consider Rule 3.3 of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct (duty of candor) and Rule 40 (sanctions), and judges discussed the definitions of negligence, recklessness, and gross negligence in Utah precedent when assessing possible discipline.

No sanction was imposed from the bench. The court said it would take the matter under advisement and issue a written decision. Petitioners' counsel confirmed the client, Mr. Gardner, had been notified of the proceedings and that an offer to reimburse costs incurred by the opposing side remained available.

Why it matters: The hearing spotlights practical and ethical issues raised by attorneys' use of generative AI tools. The court emphasized that lawyers bear responsibility for filings they sign, including verifying cited authority, and that fabricated or hallucinatory citations undermine the court's reliance on counsel and could prompt sanctions.

What happened next: The Court of Appeals took the matter under advisement and will issue a written order addressing whether sanctions or other remedies are appropriate.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","20250188 Garner v. Kadince audio file","oneSentenceSummary","The Utah Court of Appeals held a hearing after a petition was filed containing case citations generated by AI that were incorrect or nonexistent; petitioners' counsel acknowledged a law clerk used ChatGPT and the firm offered to pay opposing counsel's costs.","taxTitle","Utah Court of Appeals Live Stream, Utah Appellate Court, Utah Judicial Branch, Utah","taxId",76036,"location","Utah","headline","","shortSummary",{"_32":76,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":77,"_40":78,"_42":79,"_44":80,"_46":81,"_48":82,"_50":83,"_52":84,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":85,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":86,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6579442,"Court of Appeals hears dispute over whether HOA harms are fiduciary or individual, and scope of attorney-fee award",2601,739000,3340000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3085810-0ef230ed5255584ea5e6fd81c0d191ff&start=739&end=3340","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3085810-0ef230ed5255584ea5e6fd81c0d191ff/thumbnail_739000.jpg","/articles/6579442/Utah/Court-of-Appeals-hears-dispute-over-whether-HOA-harms-are-fiduciary-or-individual-and-scope-of-attorney-fee-award","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6579442-0a805eb4f1ed3d0fadd5c26b12bb99ab/orig.mp4?Expires=1769819610&Signature=FG0mZ7X6LXouF0DurAK98-BAQm8ZTNpCvnBhiAhMNyMmRAkvguZJIw6Sqw8V1hmyFP9HeQO1RuVrYzTzAV31hFdXX6DRr1U4XWXX06K6aquZmli--75TVYy59Dx9mh5w~psIEH8m881dkSXTeUJWF7HXBPZQ0PuK98g1WQ3jeG~OGBEemoJShqjDhIEG-AyA2Z2ndZFkyCbnRdNB29CavcJ7b1kRor5wRcgF611eJnRnABFIHRB8g0FYMkP5sAQe0D4BHzYk30wjJbOfE54JAKybn30iDfrKCzDSC7NWBEmxk8dzH22cvpBtaJgard~G3CQxcTvH9yCjfXcYlH~NHg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A three-judge panel of the Utah Court of Appeals heard oral argument in Fleming v. Delante over whether the harms alleged by condominium owner George Fleming are individualized claims for gross negligence under the Utah Revised Nonprofit Corporations Act or derivatives of fiduciary breaches, and whether earlier rulings justify an award of roughly $250,000 in attorney fees. Troy Gore, counsel for Fleming, and John Morris, counsel for Jim Delante, disputed how to characterize the pleading history and the legal standard for gross negligence.

The question at the center of argument was whether Fleming alleged harms that are personal and therefore actionable directly, or whether the complaint primarily alleged breaches of fiduciary duty that belong to the association and must be brought derivatively. \"There are individualized harms remaining,\" Troy Gore argued, citing impaired enjoyment of Fleming's unit and testimony that information was concealed from the board. \"Concealment is the key that pushes it over the line here,\" Gore said, urging that a jury could find gross negligence based on alleged concealment and control of the project by Delante.

The panel pressed both sides on how to read the district court's earlier rulings. A judge observed that the question turns on \"exactly how we characterize Judge Holmberg's ruling in January of 2019,\" asking whether the earlier order effectively dismissed a fiduciary duty claim and invited a different statutory negligence claim, or whether Fleming had always intended a non‑fiduciary statutory claim.

John Morris responded that the pleadings, read as a whole, reflect a fiduciary‑duty claim: \"Anybody reading this complaint goes, yeah, this is a breach of fiduciary duty claim and there's nothing else,\" he said, pointing to language in the original and first amended complaints that described Delante as a fiduciary and recited the statutory provisions Fleming cited. Morris argued that the Utah Supreme Court's approach in related cases requires drawing common‑law fiduciary principles into the statutory text, and that the state of mind requirement in the statute (gross negligence, willful or intentional conduct) functions as the claim's mens rea.

Both sides acknowledged some factual overlap: the record contains hundreds of documents, and both counsel pointed to deposition testimony and board minutes. Gore emphasized testimony that Delante allegedly created and controlled a subcommittee, minimized problems, and steered a New Jersey contractor into the project without full disclosure to the board. Morris countered that the record shows substantial communications and meeting minutes inconsistent with a finding of \"utter indifference,\" the standard he said the court should require for gross negligence.

The parties also debated the district court's allocation of attorney fees. Counsel for Delante defended the trial judge's decision to award fees up to a 2019 cutoff on the ground that earlier complaints were properly characterized as fiduciary‑duty claims; counsel for Fleming argued that the drafting and amendment history shows the complaint was always intended to allege statutory negligence and that fee allocation should be revisited.

The panel did not rule from the bench. \"We will take this matter under advisement and render a written decision as soon as we can,\" the court told the attorneys at the close of argument.

Why it matters: The way the Court of Appeals interprets the complaint and prior orders will determine whether claims against individual HOA board members can proceed directly for individualized harms under the Nonprofit Corporations Act or whether those claims are derivative and therefore subject to different procedural limits. The decision will also clarify the scope of recoverable attorney fees when pleadings and orders evolve over multi‑year litigation.

What happened next: The court took the case under advisement and will issue a written opinion; no ruling was announced at oral argument.","A three-judge panel of the Utah Court of Appeals heard argument in Fleming v. Delante over whether condominium owner George Fleming alleged individualized statutory harms or fiduciary‑duty claims and whether a roughly $250,000 attorney‑fee award was justified.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Court of Appeals holds show‑cause hearing after petition contained AI‑generated, nonexistent authorities

Court of Appeals hears dispute over whether HOA harms are fiduciary or individual, and scope of attorney-fee award