Latest news with #UtahCourtofAppeals
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Utah lawyer sanctioned for court filing that used ChatGPT and referenced nonexistent court case
SALT LAKE CITY () — A Utah lawyer has been sanctioned by the Utah Court of Appeals after a filing he made was found to use ChatGPT and contain a reference to a nonexistent court case. The brief was written by a law clerk at the firm, and the false citations were not reviewed before filing. The Utah Court of Appeals has decided to impose sanctions on Richard Bednar, an attorney who they claim filed a brief that used false citations created by ChatGPT. The Supreme Court reinstates federal approval in Uinta Basin Railway project According to documents, Bednar and Douglas Durbano, as the petitioner's counsel, filed a 'timely petition for interlocutory appeal.' When the respondent's counsel reviewed this brief, they found it to reference cases that were incorrect or did not exist. 'It appears that at least some portions of the Petition may be AI-generated, including citations and even quotations to at least one case that does not appear to exist in any legal database (and could only be found in ChatGPT and references to cases that are wholly unrelated to the referenced subject matter,' the respondent's counsel wrote, according to documents. The referenced case was 'Royer v. Nelson,' a case that did not exist in any legal database and was found to be an 'AI 'hallucinated' case that does not exist anywhere other than on ChatGPT.' In a phone call with Matthew C. Barneck, the attorney who represented Bednar at the OPC hearing, he shared that Bednar was not aware that ChatGPT was used until the citations were called into question. At that point, Bednar owned up to what happened. Following this response, Bednar 'acknowledged 'the errors contained in the petition' and apologized,' according to the document from the Utah Court of Appeals. He also offered to pay attorney fees incurred by the response to 'make amends.' President Trump pardons rapper NBA YoungBoy At an Office of Professional Conduct (OPC) hearing on April 22, 2025, documents say that Bednar and his attorney for the hearing 'acknowledged that the Petition contained fabricated legal authority, which was obtained from ChatGPT, and they accepted responsibility for the contents of the Petition.' They told the court that an 'unlicensed law clerk' had prepared the brief, and Bednar did not 'independently check the accuracy' before he signed it and filed it with the court. Durbano was reportedly uninvolved in the creation and filing of the petition. The law firm did not have an AI policy in place at the time, but they told the court on April 22 that they had since initiated one. Barneck clarified that most law clerks are not licensed, and the law clerk in question had previously been licensed and was a law school graduate. Why are police asking for help with finding a woman who vanished nearly 50 years ago? According to the analysis by the Utah Court of Appeals, this is the first time a court filing has been created with AI, and it has not been previously addressed by the Utah State Courts. They turned to other cases to make their decision on the sanctions. 'We agree that the use of AI in the preparation of pleadings is a legal research tool that will continue to evolve with advances in technology. However, we emphasize that every attorney has an ongoing duty to review and ensure the accuracy of their court filings. In the present case, Petitioner's counsel fell short of their gatekeeping responsibilities as members of the Utah State Bar when they submitted a petition that contained fake precedent generated by ChatGPT,' the Utah Court of Appeals said in the document. The Utah Court of Appeals further stated that, while they appreciated Bednar's acknowledgment of his wrongdoing, they still needed to place sanctions due to the mishandling of the filing and not thoroughly reviewing the document before he signed it. Bednar was ordered to pay the respondent's attorney fees for the petition and hearing, refund fees to their client for the time used to prepare the AI filing and attend the hearing, and donate $1,000 to '' — a Utah legal nonprofit — within 14 days. Utah family prepares to bury WWII pilot who was MIA for 80 years 'Although the Office of Professional Conduct (OPC) is bound by strict confidentiality rules and cannot comment on pending or nonpublic matters, the OPC takes seriously any conduct that may compromise the integrity of the judiciary and the legal profession. Additionally, the Utah State Bar is actively engaging with practitioners and ethics experts to provide guidance and continuing legal education on the ethical use of AI in law practice,' the said in a statement to ABC4. On the ethics section of their site, the Utah State Bar on the use of AI. They offer the following advice to lawyers who are considering the use of ChatGPT: 'Treat AI-generated results like a draft from a law clerk. Check any propositions or citations that you're not 100% sure about.' Barneck told ABC4 that what happened was an oversight, and the court's opinion indicates that they believe it was done negligently and not recklessly. He shared that he was glad that Bednar owned up to what happened instead of trying to sweep it under the rug like lawyers in a similar position have. Meet the new faces at Utah's Hogle Zoo! Disneyland's 70th Anniversary food drop is amazing! Drywall damage? All Four Walls is there to help make it disappear UCAIR is giving out free gas cans in Davis County: Here's why it matters A 5k to benefit the non-profit Hope After Polygamy Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Yahoo
Court reverses conviction, orders new trial for Midvale man found guilty in 2021 road rage killing
The Utah Court of Appeals has vacated a manslaughter conviction and ordered a new trial for a Midvale man who shot and killed another man during a heated exchange that began with making fun of a car and continued into road rage. Patrick Koaneil Brown admits that he shot and killed Darnell Brown, 39, on April 21, 2021, the judge's opinion says, but he claims that he worked to deescalate the situation and when that did not work and Brown hit his car, 'he felt he had no choice but to shoot.' The two men were not related. A jury found Patrick Brown guilty of murder on Aug. 25, 2022, but they also determined he acted in 'imperfect self-defense,' which reduced his conviction to manslaughter, a second-degree felony. Patrick Brown was also found guilty of three counts of felony discharge of a firearm, two first-degree felonies and one third-degree felony, along with possession of a firearm by a restricted person, a second-degree felony. He was sentenced to two terms of one to 15 years for manslaughter and possession of a firearm as a restricted person, two terms of five years to life for felony discharge of a firearm, and one sentence of three to five years for the remaining count of felony discharge of a firearm. The last term was ordered to run consecutively, meaning he was ordered to spend at least eight years and up to life in prison. At this point, he has already served about four years of that sentence, including two years he was given credit for ahead of his sentence. In his appeal of the conviction, Brown argued that a detective should not have been allowed to testify that Darnell Brown ramming into Patrick Brown's car caused damage more similar to criminal mischief than aggravated assault — which was an explanation to the jury of why perfect self-defense, which is justified under Utah's law, would not apply. The appellate judges agreed that the detective should not have testified about legal conclusions and the testimony caused prejudice against Patrick Brown in his trial. His case will now go back to 3rd District Judge Adam Mow for a new trial. On the morning of his death, Darnell Brown was driving with his fiancee and two daughters while Patrick Brown was selling clothes in his car to Darnell Brown's friend, according to the opinion. Darnell Brown stopped to talk to his friend and began to make fun of Patrick Brown's Range Rover. Darnell Brown's fiancee reported that he wanted to fight Patrick Brown and got out of the car, leading Patrick Brown to get a gun from his car — leading Darnell Brown to be more willing to fight Patrick Brown, the opinion says. Eventually, Patrick Brown got into his car and drove away, but Darnell Brown followed for several blocks while yelling, honking and trying to cause a fight, witnesses testified, until they arrived at a red light. 'Once stopped, (Patrick) Brown leaned out his window and said, 'If you follow me for another block, I'm going to shoot you in front of your family.' In response, (Darnell Brown) hit the gas and 'rammed (into) the back of' Brown's vehicle,' the opinion says, citing court testimony. Darnell Brown backed up, stopped and got out of his vehicle. Patrick Brown made a U-turn and drove toward Darnell Brown, who was now standing on the street. Patrick Brown told officers he came back to get Darnell Brown's tag number because he had hit him. Bystanders reported that Darnell Brown did not seem to be de-escalating the situation; he looked ready to fight. The opinion said that as Patrick Brown drove past Darnell Brown, he slowed down and fired four shots out his window, hitting and killing Darnell Brown. He said later he thought Darnell Brown had a weapon and may have called someone else to help him fight. 'I got caught in the situation. I'm accepting responsibility. I ain't acting like I'm innocent. I know what I did was wrong. I wasn't tryin' to kill him. I wasn't trying to shoot him up there. But when he dumped out the truck, it scared me. I thought he had a weapon,' Patrick Brown said in a quote the judges included in their opinion. He maintained at his trial that he acted in justified self-defense. The opinion said prosecutors used the testimony from the officer that the bump would not be considered aggravated assault in their closing arguments at least twice. 'In the context of this case, the admission of that testimony and the prosecutor's overt emphasis on it prejudiced Brown and undermines our confidence in the verdict,' the judges ruled.
