Docket entry 122, 25 February 2026 · source · PDF · 14 pages
Docket text. ORDER FINDING THAT MARY T. SCOTT, ESQ., AND H. LEON HEWITT, ESQ., ARE IN CONTEMPT OF THIS COURT AND HAVE VIOLATED FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 11(b), AND, PURSUANT TO RULE 11(c), IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS OF $5,000.00 AGAINST SCOTT AND $2,500.00 AGAINST HEWITT, TO BE PAID TO THE CLERK OF COURT WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF ENTRY; REQUESTING THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO TO DETERMINE WHETHER SANCTION FOR CONTEMPT IS NECESSARY; MOTION TO DISMISS OF DEFENDANTS/COUNTER-PLAINTIFFS SANDRA LEE COLLIER AND SCOTT (DOC. # 13 ) IS STRICKEN WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING; UNDERSIGNED SHALL MAKE REPORT TO SUPREME COURT OF OHIO OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL; NOTICE OF RECUSAL AND REQUEST THAT CHIEF JUDGE REASSIGN CASE TO ANOTHER DISTRICT JUDGE IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO IN THE CINCINNATI OR COLUMBUS SEAT OF COURT. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 2/25/2026. (bjr) (Entered: 02/25/2026)
" (Scott Resp., Doc. #114, PAGEID 2039). She also concedes that Kettering made her aware of several inaccurate citations, but that she did not "pause, reassess, and Case: 3:25-cv-00273-WHR-CHG Doc #: 122 Filed: 02/25/26 Page: 3 of 14 PAGEID #: 2091 independently verify the authority before filing again" using those fabricated citations, commonly known as "Al hallucinations, " in Collier and Scott's Reply. (Id.}.
(Id.}. She acknowledges that, even though she did not fabricate factual assertions, her failure to acknowledge and correct the Al-hallucinated citations in the Filings violated her duty of candor. {Id. at PAGEID 2039-40). On January 16, 2026, Hewitt filed his Response, conceding that, although "I joined the case late, [I] failed to independently verify the presented case law citations, and that failure fell below the standards of integrity, diligence, and care owed to this Court.
" (Hewitt Resp., Doc. #117, PAGEID 2046). He states that the fabricated citations were drafted by Scott, but that he erred in relying on those citations without verification before appending his name to the memorandum contra the EBG Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, {/d. at PAGEID 2046-47). As remediation, Hewitt intends to engage "additional experienced litigators for independent review where appropriate.
The undersigned expresses his deep appreciation for Magistrate Judge Silvain's exhaustive discussion of Scott and Hewitt's misrepresentations in their mediation statements (Doc. #119, PAGEID 2059-71), incorporates that discussion by reference, and summarizes the discussion of their citations as follows: Hewitt: (1) Two cases that do not exist in the citation formats provided by Hewitt; (2) Three cases that are "completely unrelated to [Hewitt's] relevant assertions[, ]" and in no way stand for the propositions for which he cites them; and (3) Eight cases that, as cited by Hewitt, "exaggerate[] or misappl[y] the law throughout [Collier's] mediation statement.
(Doc. #119, PAGEID 2068). Magistrate Judge Silvain's Order reinforces the Court's previous conclusion: that Scott and Hewitt's fabricated citations constitute the most egregious, inexplicable, and repeated violations of Rule 11(b) by any attorneys that have ever appeared before the undersigned. (Doc. #113, PAGEID 2027-28).
Moreover, despite multiple opportunities since Kettering filed its memorandum contra on September 15, 2025, for Scott and Hewitt to acknowledge their transgressions, it took a lengthy investigation and subsequent decision by the Court before they did so. Finally, and perhaps worst of all, at the very time Scott and Hewitt were promising the undersigned that they would not fabricate cases or misstate the law, they were doing just that in this very case to the undersigned's colleague. In sum, Scott and Hewitt's Responses reinforce the Court's conclusion that they violated both Rule 11(b)(2) and Ohio Rule of Professional Conduct 3.
The court in Wac/swoth v. Walmart, in imposing monetary sanctions against the attorneys who submitted Al-hallucinated caselaw, noted that, by February 24, 2025, the date of publication, "[i]t is .. . well-known in the legal community that Al resources generate fake cases. " 348 F.
2025). As evidenced by Wadsworth being cited in 61 cases since publication, by the time Collier and Scott filed the Motion to Dismiss in August 2025, every licensed attorney knew or should have reasonably known that relying on generative Al for research would likely result in a filing containing Al hallucinations. The volume of subsequent cases citing Mata and Wadsworth reinforce this Court's conclusion: that the problem of attorneys submitting hallucinated citations is rapidly worsening, and is one of the biggest threats currently facing federal civil litigation.