Local lawyer faces sanctions hearing

SANDUSKY — A Sandusky lawyer representing a local medical system in a civil suit is facing possible sanctions from a local court over several motions he filed that contained alleged false citations with the case's opposing attorney claiming they were generated by artificial intelligence. D. Jeffery Rengel, whose law office is in the 400 block of Jackson St., was ordered to appear before Judge Tygh Tone in Erie County Common Pleas Court on June 16 to face possible sanctions in a case concerning Sandusky surgeons suing Northern Ohio Medical Specialists, also known as NOMS. The case involves three Sandusky-based surgeons who are attempting to break their association with NOMS. The health care institution — which maintains offices in both Erie and Huron counties and other Ohio locations further afield — is attempting to enforce a non-compete clause in the surgeons' contracts. What's claimed When lawyers file certain documents with the court, they must provide excerpts from previous cases that tend to support their arguments, which they make in motions filed with the court. This is often referred to as citing case law. They must also cite each case used in a specific format, which, among other items, includes the case title, the journal where the case is memorialized and on what page of that journal the case is mentioned. An attorney representing the surgeon plaintiffs, Jared Lefevre of Toledo, filed a motion with the court accusing Rengel of using generative AI in documents he filed relating to the case and asked Tone to strike previously filed motions that allegedly contained inaccuracies. The plaintiffs' motion states that several of the cases cited in Rengel's motions do not exist and that when their attorneys searched the specified journal entries, many times they found cases that were in no way related to the information that was cited. One citation Rengel used was for a case called "Toledo v. State." When the plaintiffs' lawyers searched for that piece of case law, they said they found two different cases, neither of which was "Toledo v. State." One was a civil case and one was a criminal case. Another case cited by the defense was "Staymate, Inc. v. Staymate, LLC." The plaintiffs could not find any case captioned as such, according to their motion. When searching the cited case law, they found "a juvenile appeal wholly unrelated to anything at issue in this case." "It appears that case was also hallucinated by (generative AI)," Lefevre's motion states. The plaintiffs stated that they're basing that allegation on what they deemed "hallmark indicators" of AI use, including inconsistent citation format, cases being cited incorrectly, incorrect quotation attributions and inconsistent arguments. Lefevre sent a letter to Rengel on April 9 regarding the issues; a copy of the letter was included as a court exhibit. In it, Lefevre demands Rengel's offending motion be withdrawn, that he review his prior filings and withdraw any others that were generated by AI but not verified and that he disclose why any offending filings were being withdrawn. Lefevre cited Ohio's Rules of Professional Conduct, a set of rules attorneys licensed in Ohio must abide by. Rengel acknowledged that he could not locate the Staymate case when he emailed the plaintiffs' attorney the next day, according to the motion. He then filed an amended motion to dissolve a temporary restraining order motion that he filed. In an email response included in the court record, Rengel thanked Lefevre and his firm for bringing the errors to his attention, adding, "Not quite sure how that happened." Judge files order Lefevre's motion alleging the AI use and asking the court to strike several of Rengel's motions precipitated several back-and-forth motions between the two attorneys. Lefevre also requested that Rengel be sanctioned by the court. Rengel opposed the motion, claiming that the plaintiffs were merely inferring that he used AI due to "formatting irregularities and alleged citation mistakes." He did not confirm or deny in the motion whether AI was used. He stated that the alleged citation imperfections did not warrant his filings being stricken from the record and that they did not rise to sanctionable conduct. Rengel claimed that, at most, the plaintiffs disagreed with some citations and believed certain statements were imperfectly supported. On May 12, Tone signed an order striking five of Rengel's motions from the record and additionally ordered Rengel to appear in the court on June 16 and "show cause why sanctions should not be entered against him," the judge's order states. As for the underlying case, court records indicate that the dispute is going through arbitration. No future court dates appeared to be set.