--- title: "Utah: AI rules for lawyers" url: "https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/utah" type: "jurisdiction" site: "AI Law Framework" id: "US-UT" kind: "state" country: "US" parent: "United States" last_checked: "2026-10-31" as_of: "2026-10-31" last_reviewed: "2026-11-03" --- # Utah: AI rules for lawyers > Utah: court and regulator AI instruments and the tasks that change here. Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/utah Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt ## 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 court:** Unclear 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](https://legacy.utcourts.gov/rules/view.php?type=ure&rule=707) - [Garner v. Kadince, 2025 UT App 80](https://legacy.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/Garner%20v.%20Kadince20250522_20250188_80.pdf) - [Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 40](https://legacy.utcourts.gov/rules/view.php?type=urap&rule=40) - [Local Rules of Civil Practice, effective December 2025](https://www.utd.uscourts.gov/sites/utd/files/Civil%20Rules%20Final%202025.pdf) - [Using ChatGPT in Our Practices: Ethical Considerations](https://www.utahbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/ChatGPT-article.pdf) - [Utah Code Title 13, Chapter 77, Generative Artificial Intelligence — Consumer Disclosures and Enforcement](https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title13/Chapter77/C13-77_2025050820250508.pdf) - [Utah Code Title 13, Chapter 11, sections 13-11-3 and 13-11-22](https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title13/Chapter11/C13-11_1800010118000101.pdf) **Tell the client:** Varies Same basis and sources as above. ## Last checked Last checked 31 October 2026. ## What changed in Utah in the last 12 months - 1 January 2027 · Dated: [H.B. 276 (2026), Artificial Intelligence Modifications, enrolled: enacts the Digital Content Provenance Standards Act (Utah Code Chapter 13-72c)](#ai-rule-jr-us-ut-hb276-provenance) - 6 March 2026 · Dated: [Utah Rule of Evidence 707: Machine-Generated Evidence](#ai-rule-jr-us-ut-ure-707) ## AI instruments ### Courts and tribunals #### Proposed attorney-planning prompt on public generative AI and confidential discovery (2026 local-rules packet) - Type: Consultation, not in force · Consultation - Issuer: United States District Court for the District of Utah - Date on page: 14 August 2026 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: Consultation, not in force - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.utd.uscourts.gov/sites/utd/files/2026%20Rule%20Packet%20-%20CLEAN%20COPY.pdf The court's proposed 2026 local-rules packet adds a line to the attorney planning meeting report. Parties would describe any agreement about using public generative AI tools to analyse confidential information in a discovery production, including how that information will be destroyed when the litigation ends. The line is a discovery-planning prompt, not a requirement to certify AI use on filings. A text search of the civil rules PDF effective December 2025 found no generative-AI or artificial-intelligence provision. Key points: - Proposal only, as at 31 October 2026. Comment period ended 4 September 2026. - The prompt is limited to public generative AI used on confidential discovery material. - The notice says adopted amendments would be published online on 1 December 2026. - No district-wide AI disclosure rule was found in the civil rules in force. #### Utah Rule of Evidence 707: Machine-Generated Evidence - Type: Court rule or order · Court rule - Issuer: Utah State Courts - Date on page: 6 March 2026 - Effective date: 6 March 2026 - Status: 6 March 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://legacy.utcourts.gov/rules/view.php?type=ure&rule=707 Rule 707 applies when machine-generated evidence is offered without an expert and the output is an inference, prediction, classification or conclusion that would face Rule 702(b) if an expert testified to it. The court may admit it only if it will help the trier of fact, is based on sufficient facts or data, is the product of reliable principles and methods, and reliably applies those principles to the case. It does not apply to a simple scientific instrument, defined as a device that measures and reports without generating an inference, prediction, classification or conclusion. The rule covers evidence entered directly or accompanied by lay testimony. Key points: - Effective 6 March 2026, after H.J.R. 26 passed by a two-thirds vote of each house. - Machine-generated evidence means information produced by a machine-based system that autonomously processes data to generate an inference, prediction, classification or conclusion. - Without an expert, where the output would be subject to Rule 702(b) if an expert testified to it, admission requires the four conditions in Rule 707(b)(1)(A) to (D). - A simple scientific instrument is outside the rule. - The rule does not require lawyers to disclose generative-AI use in briefs. #### Interim rules on the use of generative AI for court-related work or court-owned devices - Type: Court policy - Issuer: Utah Judicial Council - Date on page: 27 October 2025 - Effective date: 27 October 2025 - Status: 27 October 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://sites.google.com/utcourts.gov/courts-hr/policy/ai-information The public HR page says that from 27 October 2025 the Judicial Council's interim rules govern generative AI used for court-related work or on court-owned devices, and that any tool not expressly permitted is prohibited. The approved list on the page names Adobe Firefly, ChatGPT, Claude.ai (Beta), Gemini Pro, Microsoft Copilot, NotebookLM, the Webex Cisco AI Assistant and Westlaw. The page is addressed to court staff. It does not set a filing rule for lawyers appearing in Utah courts. Key points: - Scope stated on the page: court-related work or court-owned devices. - Unlisted tools are prohibited for that use. - The page directs readers to the intranet for the controlling text. - Not a disclosure or certification duty for outside counsel. #### Garner v. Kadince, 2025 UT App 80 (fabricated authority and appellate rule 40) - Type: Judgment - Issuer: Utah Court of Appeals - Date on page: 22 May 2025 - Effective date: 22 May 2025 - Status: 22 May 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://legacy.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/Garner%20v.%20Kadince20250522_20250188_80.pdf The Court of Appeals sanctioned counsel who filed a petition for interlocutory appeal containing citations, including a fabricated case, traced to ChatGPT. A law clerk used the tool and the signing lawyer did not check the petition. The court said AI may be used as a research tool, and that every attorney must review filings. A fake opinion is not existing law under appellate rule 40, and the court found the conduct fell short of the knowing or reckless intent in rule 3.3. Key points: - Sanctions: pay the respondents' fees for answering the petition and attending the hearing; refund fees charged to the client for the petition; pay 1,000 US dollars to and Justice for all. - Rule 40(b): the signature certifies that legal contentions are warranted by existing law after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances. - The opinion describes rule 40 as the appellate counterpart of Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 11. - The court treated the conduct as less serious than cases in which lawyers kept insisting the citations were real, and it noted counsel's acceptance of responsibility. - A single-case order, not a statewide disclosure rule. #### Utah Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1, comment [8] (relevant technology) - Type: Court rule or order · Court rule - Issuer: Utah Supreme Court - Date on page: 17 May 2023 - Effective date: 17 May 2023 - Status: 17 May 2023; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://legacy.utcourts.gov/utc/rules-approved/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2023/05/RPC01.01.Well-being-comment.Final_.Redline.pdf Comment [8] says that to maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, engage in continuing study and education, and comply with applicable continuing legal education requirements. The comment does not mention generative AI. The 17 May 2023 amendment added comment [9] on lawyer well-being. The order is the last Rule 1.1 entry on the court's amendment category page. Key points: - Technology competence sits in comment [8] of the Utah rule, under the heading Maintaining Competence. - The comment does not name generative AI, disclosure, or client consent. - The 2023 change that the category page describes is the well-being comment, not an AI comment. - The live rules viewer returned a different rule when asked for Rule 1.1; this text is the final redline published with the 2023 order. ### State bar and regulators #### Navigating Generative AI in Law: Five Ethical Principles Every Lawyer Should Remember - Type: Law society or bar guidance · Bar guidance - Issuer: Utah State Bar - Date on page: 19 November 2025 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: 2025-11-19; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.utahbar.org/video-navigating-generative-ai-in-law-five-ethical-principles-every-lawyer-should-remember/ A Bar guest blog sets out five points for generative AI: verify output against original authority; avoid tools that train on user inputs or else enter no confidential or identifiable client information; bill only the time actually spent when the fee is hourly; adopt a workplace policy covering approved tools, verification, confidentiality, billing, client disclosure if applicable, and training; and use the tools within existing ethical duties. The page says licensees can reach a Lexis AI resource hub through the Practice Portal. It does not create a new rule. Key points: - Labelled a guest blog, not a formal ethics opinion. - Verification of AI-generated legal information is described as mandatory. - Client disclosure is listed as a topic for a workplace policy, with the words if applicable. - Hourly billing for time the tool saved is described as inconsistent with the duty to bill accurately. #### Using ChatGPT in Our Practices: Ethical Considerations - Type: Law society or bar guidance · Bar guidance - Issuer: Utah State Bar - Date on page: Not stated - Effective date: Not stated - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.utahbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/ChatGPT-article.pdf An unsigned Bar article maps ChatGPT use onto existing Utah duties. It advises the lawyer to tell the client they would like to use AI, explain the benefits and risks, and let the client decide, citing rules 1.2 and 1.4. It treats input of client information as a rule 1.6 problem and says to omit names and other identifying details. On fees it says to charge only for time spent using the tool, and on competence and supervision it cites rules 1.1 and 5.3 and says to treat output like a law clerk's draft. Key points: - Not a formal ethics opinion and not a safe-harbour opinion under the Bar's opinion rules. - Client consultation is the article's advice under rules 1.2 and 1.4, not a holding that AI use always requires consent. - Confidentiality: do not reveal information relating to the representation to the tool. - The article says a suggestion that the lawyer's own use of AI is unauthorised practice is not accurate. ### Legislation #### H.B. 276 (2026), Artificial Intelligence Modifications, enrolled: enacts the Digital Content Provenance Standards Act (Utah Code Chapter 13-72c) - Type: Legislation - Issuer: Utah Legislature - Date on page: 1 January 2027 - Effective date: 1 January 2027 - Status: 1 January 2027; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://le.utah.gov/Session/2026/bills/enrolled/HB0276.pdf The enrolled bill enacts the Digital Content Provenance Standards Act. A covered provider must include a latent disclosure in image, video or audio content, or a combination of those, that its generative AI system creates or substantially modifies, where the stated technical criteria are met. A covered provider produces a generative AI system with over 1,000,000 monthly visitors or users that is publicly accessible in Utah, and an internal-only system is excluded. A law firm that uses another provider's tool, and does not itself produce a public system of that scale, is outside this definition. Key points: - Effective date printed in the enrolled bill: 1 January 2027. - The duty runs to the producer of the generative AI system, not to every user of the system. - Threshold: over 1,000,000 monthly visitors or users, and public access in the state. - Internal-only systems are excluded. - The same bill also addresses counterfeit intimate images. That part is not a rule about lawyers' use of AI in practice. #### Utah Code Title 13, Chapter 77: Generative Artificial Intelligence — Consumer Disclosures and Enforcement - Type: Legislation - Issuer: Utah Legislature - Date on page: 7 May 2025 - Effective date: 7 May 2025 - Status: 7 May 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title13/Chapter77/C13-77_2025050820250508.pdf A supplier using generative AI in a consumer transaction must say so if the individual makes a clear and unambiguous request to know whether the interaction is with a human or with AI. A person in a regulated occupation must prominently disclose a high-risk generative-AI interaction, verbally at the start or in writing before a written exchange, and must still meet the occupation's own requirements. A regulated occupation is one regulated by the Department of Commerce that requires a licence or state certification. High-risk covers sensitive personal data and personalised advice for a significant decision, with legal advice listed as an example, and it is not a defence that generative AI made the statement. Key points: - Enrolled S.B. 226 numbered this chapter 75 and repealed former section 13-2-12. The code PDF now presents the provisions as Chapter 77. - The if-asked duty uses the Consumer Sales Practices Act definitions of supplier and consumer transaction. Section 13-11-22 does not exempt lawyers. - The proactive high-risk duty is tied to Department of Commerce licensure. Lawyers' conduct rules are adopted by the Utah Supreme Court, and the court's regulatory-reform committee minutes note that courts are constitutionally authorised to regulate the practice of law; whether lawyers fall within 'regulated occupation' is not decided by the statute's text. - Safe harbour in section 13-77-104: a clear disclosure at the outset, and throughout, that the system is generative AI avoids an enforcement action for violating section 13-77-103. - Administrative fine up to 2,500 US dollars per violation; a breach of an order can draw a civil penalty up to 5,000 US dollars per violation. Enforced by the Division of Consumer Protection. #### Utah Code Title 13, Chapter 72: Artificial Intelligence Policy Act - Type: Legislation - Issuer: Utah Legislature - Date on page: 6 May 2026 - Effective date: 1 May 2024 - Status: 1 May 2024; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title13/Chapter72/C13-72-S201_2026050620260506.pdf The Act creates the Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy in the Department of Commerce and an Artificial Intelligence Learning Laboratory. A participant may seek a time-limited regulatory mitigation agreement, which can permit a deployment despite a law or rule that might impede it, or a joint interpretation agreement. The agreement sets safeguards, consumer disclosures and audit reporting, participation is not a state endorsement, and unwaived requirements still apply. Section 63I-2-213 repeals Chapter 72 on 1 July 2027. Key points: - This chapter does not impose a general AI-use or disclosure duty on every law firm. - Duties fall on participants who enter an agreement with the office and the relevant agency or governmental entity. - The judiciary is a governmental entity that can be a party to a joint interpretation agreement. - Section 13-72-201, as amended, is effective 6 May 2026. - Repeal date of the chapter: 1 July 2027, under section 63I-2-213 as amended by Chapter 277, 2025. ## Sources 23 sources, each with its issuer and the date it was last checked. - United States District Court for the District of Utah: [Proposed attorney-planning prompt on public generative AI and confidential discovery (2026 local-rules packet)](https://www.utd.uscourts.gov/sites/utd/files/2026%20Rule%20Packet%20-%20CLEAN%20COPY.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Utah State Courts: [Utah Rule of Evidence 707: Machine-Generated Evidence](https://legacy.utcourts.gov/rules/view.php?type=ure&rule=707) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Utah Judicial Council: [Interim rules on the use of generative AI for court-related work or court-owned devices](https://sites.google.com/utcourts.gov/courts-hr/policy/ai-information) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Utah Court of Appeals: [Garner v. Kadince, 2025 UT App 80 (fabricated authority and appellate rule 40)](https://legacy.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/Garner%20v.%20Kadince20250522_20250188_80.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Utah Supreme Court: [Utah Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1, comment 8 (relevant technology)](https://legacy.utcourts.gov/utc/rules-approved/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2023/05/RPC01.01.Well-being-comment.Final_.Redline.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Utah State Bar: [Navigating Generative AI in Law: Five Ethical Principles Every Lawyer Should Remember](https://www.utahbar.org/video-navigating-generative-ai-in-law-five-ethical-principles-every-lawyer-should-remember/) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Utah State Bar: [Using ChatGPT in Our Practices: Ethical Considerations](https://www.utahbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/ChatGPT-article.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Utah Legislature: [H.B. 276 (2026), Artificial Intelligence Modifications, enrolled: enacts the Digital Content Provenance Standards Act (Utah Code Chapter 13-72c)](https://le.utah.gov/Session/2026/bills/enrolled/HB0276.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Utah Legislature: [Utah Code Title 13, Chapter 77: Generative Artificial Intelligence — Consumer Disclosures and Enforcement](https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title13/Chapter77/C13-77_2025050820250508.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Utah Legislature: [Utah Code Title 13, Chapter 72: Artificial Intelligence Policy Act](https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title13/Chapter72/C13-72-S201_2026050620260506.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Local Rules of Civil Practice, effective December 2025](https://www.utd.uscourts.gov/sites/utd/files/Civil%20Rules%20Final%202025.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Utah Code Title 13, Chapter 11, sections 13-11-3 and 13-11-22](https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title13/Chapter11/C13-11_1800010118000101.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Utah Court Rules – Approved](https://legacy.utcourts.gov/utc/rules-approved/2026/03/09/rules-of-evidence-effective-march-6-2026/) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Utah Legislature](https://le.utah.gov/Session/2026/bills/enrolled/HJR026.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Utah Legislature](https://le.utah.gov/~2025/bills/sbillenr/SB0226.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Utah Legislature](https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title13/Chapter72/C13-72_2024050120240501.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Utah Legislature](https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title63I/Chapter2/C63I-2-S213_2025050720250507.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Utah Supreme Court](https://legacy.utcourts.gov/utc/rules-approved/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2023/05/Rule-1.1-URPC-effective-5-17-23.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Utah Court Rules – Approved](https://legacy.utcourts.gov/utc/rules-approved/category/rpc01-01/) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Utah State Bar](https://www.utahbar.org/ethics_advice/) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Utah State Bar](https://www.utahbar.org/ethicsopinions/) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [United States District Court for the District of Utah](https://www.utd.uscourts.gov/rules-practice) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Utah Supreme Court Ad Hoc Committee on Regulatory Reform](https://www.utcourts.gov/content/dam/committees/regulatory_reform/minutes/4.17.26%20Meeting%20Minutes.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 ## Key facts - Kind: State - Task versions written for this jurisdiction: 0 - AI instruments recorded: 10 *Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*