Disciplinary Counsel v. Agee
Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme Court of Ohio · Ohio Bd. Prof. Conduct · Ohio bar guidance
Conduct
Here an attorney filed a motion citing a case that does not exist; his answer admits he used AI to help write it and that the case was hallucinated.
Consequence
A disciplinary complaint charging competence and candor violations is pending before the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct, with a hearing set for January 2027.
Lesson
Here the complaint charges both the citation and the failure to correct it after the court flagged it, and alleges false statements to the judge.
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Agee, No. 2026-032, Complaint and Certificate (Ohio Bd. Prof. Conduct filed Aug. 28, 2026); id., Answer of Respondent to Relator's Complaint (filed Sept. 17, 2026); id., Notice of Formal Hearing (filed Sept. 29, 2026)
- Filing date
- August 28, 2026
Summary
Disciplinary Counsel filed a certified complaint with the Board of Professional Conduct against Ohio attorney Ryan Nicholas Agee. The complaint alleges that in Dutt v. DGK Roofing and Home Solutions, LLC, Preble C.P. No. 24CV033185, after a default ruling against his client, Agee filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion that he used AI to write, citing "Blount v. Smith, 119 Ohio App.3d 647 (8th Dist. 1997)" for a proposition about excusable neglect. The complaint alleges the case "does not exist" and that "the AI application hallucinated the case, citation, and proposition of law." It quotes Judge Votel's March 28, 2025 entry denying the motion: "This citation does not exist." It further alleges that Agee did not correct the citation; that in chambers after the May 1, 2025 damages hearing he told the judge he double-checks his citations and falsely said he had found a case supporting the proposition; that he then admitted using AI when the judge asked, "This is an AI thing, isn't it?"; and that the court awarded the plaintiff $51,638.72 in damages.
- AI tool:
- Unnamed AI application (the complaint alleges that respondent "used artificial intelligence" to write the motion; his answer admits he "used artificial intelligence (AI) to assist in writing the motion")
- Amount or terms:
- None yet; a certified complaint alleging violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 and 3.3(a)(1) is pending, with a formal hearing set for January 22, 2027
What is the current procedural posture?
The complaint charges violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (competence) and 3.3(a)(1) (knowingly making a false statement of law to a tribunal, or failing to correct one). In his September 17, 2026 answer, Agee admits he used AI to assist in writing the motion and that Blount v. Smith "is a hallucinated case that Respondent inadvertently cited," and admits the court's entry and the damages award, and admits the allegation that he made no effort to correct or withdraw the motion. He states that he double-checked the motion's citations and corrected others before filing but "missed the hallucinated citation during that review." He denies "any intention to assert an incorrect proposition of law or mislead the Court," denies that he lied to the judge, denies for want of knowledge that he said he had found a supporting case, and denies the rule violations. A three-member panel has been assigned, and the Board's notice sets a formal hearing for January 22, 2027. No finding has been made.
Why does Disciplinary Counsel v. Agee matter for law firms using AI?
This is a disciplinary matter at the charging stage. Ohio’s Disciplinary Counsel alleges that a lawyer used AI to draft a motion for relief from a default judgment, that the motion rested on a case that does not exist, and that the trial judge found the problem himself when he looked up a citation that seemed to contradict his understanding of the law. The complaint quotes the judge’s entry: “This citation does not exist.”
The complaint’s focus goes beyond the citation. It alleges that the lawyer never withdrew or corrected the motion after the court’s entry, and that when the judge raised it in chambers the lawyer first said he double-checks his citations before admitting AI use. The answer admits the AI use and the hallucinated case, admits that he made no effort to correct or withdraw the motion, and admits that he spoke with the judge about the citation in chambers, told him something to the effect that he double-checks his citations, and told him he had used AI. It denies lying to the judge, denies for want of knowledge the rest of the chambers exchange as alleged, and denies the charged rule violations. A hearing panel is scheduled to hear the matter in January 2027.
Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that the charged conduct here includes the response after the court flagged the citation, not only the citation itself.
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- Document how a filing is corrected once a court flags a nonexistent citation. The complaint alleges, and the answer admits, that the respondent made no effort to correct or withdraw the motion after the court's entry, and it charges a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(1), which covers failing to correct a false statement of law.
- Review how lawyers without a case-law research subscription verify AI-drafted citations. The answer admits the respondent told the judge he had no account with a case law research program at the time, and that he missed the citation in his own review.
- Consider that the underlying case ended in a $51,638.72 damages award against the client after the motion for relief was denied.
Sources
Primary sources
- The facts are allegations in a pending disciplinary complaint, not findings. The entry reports which allegations the answer admits and which it denies; the Board has made no determination.
- Judge Votel's March 28, 2025 entry in Dutt v. DGK Roofing and Home Solutions, LLC (Preble C.P. No. 24CV033185) was not read; its language is quoted from paragraph 14 of the complaint, which the answer admits. The complaint prints the judge's surname only.
- The complaint and answer are linked from the Board's online docket page (source_urls[0]); the page serves each document through a form postback rather than a stable document URL.