Utah: AI rules for lawyers

What this means for lawyers

No Utah rule was found that requires a lawyer to tell the court that generative AI was used in a filing. The duty that has been enforced is accuracy. In Garner v. Kadince, 2025 UT App 80, the Court of Appeals sanctioned counsel who filed a petition containing ChatGPT-fabricated authority, under rule 40 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Utah Rule of Evidence 707, effective 6 March 2026, governs machine-generated evidence offered without an expert when the output is an inference, prediction, classification or conclusion. The court may admit it only if it is helpful, based on sufficient facts or data, the product of reliable principles and methods, and reliably applied. Output of a simple scientific instrument is outside the rule.

Rule 1.1 comment [8] says a lawyer should keep abreast of the benefits and risks of relevant technology. It does not mention generative AI. The rules-approved list for Rule 1.1 shows no amendment after 17 May 2023.

No formal Utah State Bar ethics opinion on generative AI was found (formal opinions give a safe harbour under rule 1-522, per the Bar's ethics advice page); the informal pieces below are not safe-harbour opinions.

As at 31 October 2026.

Telling the court and the client

• Tell the courtUnclear

  Court disclosure: no rule found. No statewide order, evidence rule or District of Utah local rule was found that requires a lawyer to certify or disclose generative-AI use in a filing. Accuracy duties still apply: rule 40 treats the signature as a certificate that legal contentions are warranted by existing law, and Garner v. Kadince applied that certificate to fabricated citations.

  Client disclosure/consent: no rule found that requires AI-specific client consent. The Bar's 2023 article advises telling the client under rules 1.2 and 1.4; that article is not a formal opinion. Chapter 77 can require a supplier to answer a clear question about whether the person is talking to generative AI, in a consumer transaction.

  Utah Rule of Evidence 707, Machine-Generated Evidence

  Garner v. Kadince, 2025 UT App 80

  Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 40

  Local Rules of Civil Practice, effective December 2025

  Using ChatGPT in Our Practices: Ethical Considerations

  Utah Code Title 13, Chapter 77, Generative Artificial Intelligence — Consumer Disclosures and Enforcement

  Utah Code Title 13, Chapter 11, sections 13-11-3 and 13-11-22
• Tell the clientVaries

  Same basis and sources as above.