Ascent Management, Inc. et al v. Shell Oil Company et al
Montgomery CC, Ohio · Apr 30, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The court sanctioned attorney Ghassan Jamal Deek for submitting filings containing fabricated and misrepresented case law generated by artificial intelligence. The court found the conduct willful and frivolous, ordering the attorney to pay $5,273.00 in sanctions to the defendants for expenses and attorney fees incurred due to the misconduct.
- Why the court cared
- The court determined that the attorney's conduct was willful under Civ.R. 11 and frivolous under R.C. 2323.51, as the attorney failed to read and verify citations, abused the judicial process, and acted with the purpose to harass counsel and cause unnecessary delay.
- Why it matters now
- This case illustrates the consequences of failing to verify AI-generated legal research. It reinforces that attorneys are personally responsible for the accuracy of all filings, and that reliance on AI does not excuse the submission of fabricated or misrepresented authority.
Why this matter is tracked
In a civil action before the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, the court sanctioned attorney Ghassan Jamal Deek for submitting filings containing fabricated and misrepresented case law. During a March 2026 hearing, Attorney Deek admitted to using artificial intelligence to generate his filings and failing to verify the citations. The court found that the attorney's conduct was willful under Civ.R. 11 and frivolous under R.C. 2323.51, noting that the filings included fake citations such as 'Perrico v. Verizon' and misrepresented other authorities. The court concluded that the conduct was intended to harass opposing counsel and cause unnecessary delay, resulting in an order requiring the attorney to pay $5,273.00 in expenses and attorney fees to the defendants.
This case illustrates the consequences of failing to verify AI-generated legal research. It reinforces that attorneys are personally responsible for the accuracy of all filings, and that reliance on AI does not excuse the submission of fabricated or misrepresented authority.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
Attorney admitted using AI for all filings.
The court issued an Order Granting Motion for Sanctions against Attorney Ghassan Jamal Deek following a March 13, 2026, hearing on motions filed by Defendants Shell Oil Company, Shell Leasing Company, Shell Petroleum Inc., and True North Energy, LLC.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
4 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | November 5, 2024 filing cited 'Perrico v. Verizon, 2018-Ohio-3994.' Court found no such opinion on search and treated it as a fabricated citation.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | December 3, 2024 filing cited 'Kyser v. Summit County Children Services, 2022-Ohio-1207,' but court's search showed the reporter corresponds to a different case.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Citation to 'In re Fuel Adjustment Clauses for Columbus S. Power Co. & Ohio Power Co., 41 Ohio St.2d 41' was misattributed; reporter corresponds to a different named opinion.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Citation to 'Baker v. Coast to Coast Manpower, LLC, 2020-Ohio-4533' corresponded to a different published decision on search.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Ascent Management, Inc. et al v. Shell Oil Company et al?
- The court sanctioned attorney Ghassan Jamal Deek for submitting filings containing fabricated and misrepresented case law generated by artificial intelligence. The court found the conduct willful and frivolous, ordering the attorney to pay $5,273.00 in sanctions to the defendants for expenses and attorney fees incurred due to the misconduct.
- Why does Ascent Management, Inc. et al v. Shell Oil Company et al matter for legal AI risk?
- This case illustrates the consequences of failing to verify AI-generated legal research. It reinforces that attorneys are personally responsible for the accuracy of all filings, and that reliance on AI does not excuse the submission of fabricated or misrepresented authority.
- What does the public record establish about Ascent Management, Inc. et al v. Shell Oil Company et al?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this Ascent Management, Inc. et al v. Shell Oil Company et al summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.