The Ohio Board of Professional Conduct recently issued Opinion 2025-03 Alteration of Judicial Decisions and Entries by Court Staff. The Opinion examined whether a judge may encourage, condone, or ignore an internal court practice of administrative staff making unilateral changes to a decision, opinion, judgment entry, or journal entry after the judge has signed or otherwise approved the document and before filing it with the clerk of court and releasing it to the parties and public. 

It discusses applicable Judicial Conduct Rules aimed at upholding public confidence in the judiciary and reinforces judges’ duties to reach decisions independently and without reliance on the judgment of others. The analysis notes that while most courts have staff members to edit, review, and proofread judicial decisions or entries prior to publication, an internal practice that permits staff to unilaterally make even well-intentioned changes after judicial approval risks unauthorized or unreviewed changes that may misinterpret, alter, or change the meaning of the judge’s decision.   

If this takes place without further review, the judge is ceding a judicial function that cannot be delegated. The judicial conduct rules require supervision of court staff consistent with the obligations of the judge. The judge may not abdicate or delegate the responsibility for the final content of the decisions and entries to court staff.  

Attorneys, like judges, have a professional duty to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the documents they submit to a court. Numerous disciplinary cases illustrate the consequences for lawyers who fail to personally review or verify the contents of their filings. A particularly high-profile example is Mata v. Avianca, Inc., where two New York attorneys faced sanctions in 2023 after submitting a federal court brief that cited fictitious, “hallucinated” cases generated by ChatGPT. The lawyers had failed to verify the existence of the cited authority, assuming its accuracy without further investigation, and doubling-down when questioned about the citations. The court emphasized that reliance on a generative AI tool does not excuse a lawyer’s duty of competence and candor under Rules 1.1 and 3.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Despite this case’s notoriety, similar incidents persist. A recent sanctions ruling in Colorado stemmed from attorneys’ filings with over two dozen un-corrected generative AI errors. 

Just as Ohio Opinion 2025-03 underscores judges’ obligation to personally review final rulings, attorneys are legally and ethically mandated to supervise any nonlawyers involved in their filings. Courts have demonstrated this principle concretely. In The Florida Bar v. Mitchell (1990), an attorney was suspended for 15 days after his secretary forged an opposing counsel’s signature. The court found that the unauthorized act traced directly to his inadequate supervision. Similarly, in The Florida Bar v. Sweeney (1998), Sweeney was disciplined when his staff forged a client’s signature on a settlement affidavit that he filed. These decisions reinforce that the ultimate responsibility for accuracy, authenticity and compliance lies with the attorney, not any assistant or staff member. 

Similar to the Florida rulings, Ohio lawyers can be disciplined under Prof.Cond.R. 3.1, 3.3 and 1.1 for signing and filing pleadings that contained false or misleading information even if the inaccuracies originated from clients or staff: the ultimate responsibility lies with the lawyer who signs the submission. These cases, like Advisory Opinion 2025-03 on judicial review, highlight a shared professional imperative: judges and lawyers alike must not outsource their independent judgment or ethical obligations. Whether rendering a decision or submitting a pleading, personal oversight remains essential to upholding the rule of law and maintaining public trust in the legal system. 

In this fast-paced and demanding environment, this Advisory Opinion reminds us that those extra moments to review final documents are necessary and worthwhile. Want to take another moment to discuss? Don’t hesitate to contact OBLIC’s Loss Prevention team.  

This information is made available solely for loss prevention purposes, which may include claim prevention techniques designed to minimize the likelihood of incurring a claim for legal malpractice. This information does not establish, report, or create the standard of care for attorneys. The material is not a complete analysis of the topic and should not be construed as providing legal advice. Please conduct your own appropriate legal research in this area. If you have questions about this email’s content and are an OBLIC policyholder, please contact us using the information above.