In re M.A.L.B.

What sanction did the court impose?

In an opinion by Presiding Judge Smith (Abele and Hess, JJ., concurring), the court held that the failure to cite authorities that actually support the propositions asserted did not comply with its order to file a conforming brief, which "constitutes grounds to dismiss the appeal" under Fourth District Local Rule 16(F), and dismissed the appeal. "While we do not take dismissal lightly, the court will not tolerate appellate briefs that waste judicial resources by patently misquoting authorities, misrepresenting the holdings of cases, or citing nonexistent authority." Costs were assessed to appellant; the judgment entry also states the court's finding that "there were reasonable grounds for this appeal." The opinion does not use the word sanction. A footnote quotes Jud.Cond.R. 2.15(B), which requires a judge with knowledge of certain professional-conduct violations to inform the appropriate authority, but the opinion does not state that the court made a referral. The court noted that the agency's briefs identified additional inaccuracies and that the brief also lacked other required App.R. 16(A) components.

Why does In re M.A.L.B. matter for law firms using AI?

In re M.A.L.B. is a two-step dismissal. On February 23, 2026, the Fourth District struck J.B.’s original brief, explaining that “[c]itations to nonexistent cases or to cases that do not support the propositions asserted are not citations to authorities” and so do not satisfy App.R. 16(A)(7). It ordered a conforming brief and warned that failure would mean dismissal. The replacement brief removed the nonexistent citations, but the court went through it and found that some of the authorities cited did not support the propositions for which they were cited: a statute quoted for words it does not contain, a Third District decision cited for a reversal it did not order, and a disciplinary case repeated with a reporter citation and WebCite that lead to two different decisions, neither of which supports the contention.

The court treated that as noncompliance with its order and dismissed the appeal, citing Fourth District Local Rule 16(F), Ohio appellate decisions recognizing a court’s discretion to dismiss for failure to comply with the appellate rules, and a Ninth Circuit decision dismissing an appeal over an opening brief “replete with misrepresentations and fabricated case law.” “While we do not take dismissal lightly, the court will not tolerate appellate briefs that waste judicial resources by patently misquoting authorities, misrepresenting the holdings of cases, or citing nonexistent authority.” In a footnote it quoted Jud.Cond.R. 2.15(B) on a judge’s duty to inform the appropriate authority of certain violations, and in another it stated its suspicion that the problems “stem from the unverified use of artificial intelligence,” adding that “a lawyer’s duty of competence and other professional obligations are not” new.

The practical point is the one the court quoted from a Kansas Bar Journal article: “citing a case authority is not enough.” A correction that swaps a nonexistent citation for a real but inapposite one leaves the brief in the same condition under App.R. 16(A)(7). Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that, in this court, the cost of that condition fell on the client, whose custody appeal ended without a merits decision.