Published opinion, 20 March 2026 · source · PDF · 65 pages
Appellant cites to two quotes in the Application to Reopen which appear not to exist. As such, Appellee and government staff have wasted significant time in attempting to track down these quotes and replying to a brief predicated on fabrications. Additionally, Appellant’s counsel has failed in his ethical duties by misleading this Court, in violation of Rule 3.3 of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct.
This court acknowledged movant’s claim that the alleged statements were “predicated on fabrication” and that sanctions should be ordered. As such, respondent was ordered to show cause why sanctions should not be pursued. {¶6} On July 10, 2025, respondent admitted a member of his staff used Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) tools, which improperly generated “hallucinated” quotes that did not exist. Respondent stated he had taken steps to ensure AI would be properly used in future cases to avoid repeating the error.
He didn’t catch it . . . . He didn’t catch the hallucinated quotes. That was wrong.
In that motion, filed on October 29, 2025—two months after the sanctions hearing in this court—respondent cited questionable citations, one of which could not be found.
Respondent maintained the origina l filing was an early draft that was accidentally filed. {¶17} Respondent further argued that “Saker has nothing to do with this case.” He maintained that the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas has jurisdiction over whether he should face any consequences for filing the initial motion and therefore his actions or omissions in that case are not the business of this court. {¶18} Next, in response to movant’s points relating to the possibility of unauthorized practice of law, respondent argued that “[t]his court cannot issue an order that suspends [respondent’s] law license . . . .” As such, he asserted this court lacks the authority “to investigate or […]
They were not paraphrases, approximations, or loose characterizations of actual statements; they were wholesale inventions that bore no resemblance to the record. Movant and this court, however, used time and resources in an attempt to verify the statements. {¶24} The fabricated quotations were generated by ChatGPT, a publicly available generative artificial -intelligence platform. Respondent’s paralegal, a non -attorney staff member, uploaded materials relating to the case to ChatGPT and used the platform’s output in preparing the application to reopen.
Respondent’s paralegal, a non -attorney staff member, uploaded materials relating to the case to ChatGPT and used the platform’s output in preparing the application to reopen. The AI tool produced false transcript quotations—a phenomenon known as “hallucination” —and these fabricated quotations were incorporated into the filing submitted to this court. PAGE 10 OF 65 Case No.
PAGE 10 OF 65 Case No. 2024-A-0040 {¶25} The fabricated quotations did not merely misrepresent the record in the abstract. They ascribed specific, inflammatory statements to an identifiable individual — the trial prosecutor —that were never uttered.