Was In re A.P. sanctioned over AI-generated citations?

In re A.P. (Ohio CA (12th), July 27, 2026) is a documented matter involving citations that could not be verified against the reporters named. The recorded outcome was: No penalty imposed; parties reminded that citations the court cannot verify may result in sanctions. No monetary penalty in this order.

Which AI tool was involved in In re A.P.?

The order in In re A.P. does not identify a specific generative tool by name. The court treated the citations as the product of an unverified AI-assisted drafting workflow.

July 27, 2026 · AI sanctions database

In re A.P.

In re A.P. is one matter in the Veritas record of US court proceedings involving AI-generated citations that could not be verified against the reporters named. The summary below is drawn from the underlying court document, linked at the foot of this page.

Court: Ohio CA (12th)
Date: July 27, 2026
Party: Pro Se Litigant
AI tool: Not identified in the order
Outcome: No penalty imposed; parties reminded that citations the court cannot verify may result in sanctions
Penalty: No monetary penalty in this order.

Warning

What the record shows

The Twelfth District Court of Appeals of Ohio addressed a self-represented father's acknowledged reliance on artificial intelligence in drafting his appellate brief. The court stated several citations were erroneous, leading to miscited cases and to cases that exist but stand for different legal propositions than the brief represented. The court reminded all parties and attorneys appearing before it that citations it cannot verify will be disregarded and may result in sanctions, and noted that pro se status does not relieve a litigant of the appellate rules. It imposed no penalty and resolved the appeal on other grounds.

This entry reflects the court document as filed. The citations at issue could not be located in the reporters named at the time of the order. The reading here is descriptive of the public record and is not legal advice.

Source documents

Primary court document ↗ · CourtListener record ↗

The test this filing did not run

Every matter in this record shares one mechanism: a citation that did not resolve to an opinion in the reporter named, in a brief that was filed before any verification step ran. Veritas runs that step. The Filing Risk Scanner extracts each citation, resolves it against reporter and public-record sources, and returns a verdict on each one — located, partial, or not located in reporter — before the brief is signed.

Run a free review Back to the full tracker →

Filed under · AI sanctions database · Ohio CA (12th)

About this publication

Veritas is a pre-filing citation verification platform for law firms and in-house counsel. Every post on the audit log is written by the Veritas editorial team and cross-checked against the underlying sanctions order, standing order, or published opinion it references. Reporter citations are read in their named volumes. Quotations from court orders are checked against the docket.

The product was built by Andrew Zoll, founder of Veritas, who tracks generative AI sanctions in federal and state courts and turns each documented failure mode into verification logic the scanner runs. Veritas was built after the canonical Mata v. Avianca sanctions order made the verification gap a published failure mode of the bar.

AI sanctions database · Sample report · Pricing · Run a scan