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. [...] 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. [...] For the foregoing reasons, Scott and Hewitt ARE FOUND to be in contempt of this Court and ARE FOUND to have violated Rule 11(b).
A judge who has been on the federal bench since 1980 writing that he has never seen anything like it. The citations included a Sixth Circuit opinion that does not exist and an Ohio Supreme Court decision cited for a proposition it does not contain. The line that carries the case is about timing rather than degree: while the two lawyers were assuring this judge they would not fabricate cases or misstate the law, they were doing exactly that in the same case in front of the magistrate judge. Decided 25 February 2026. Both held in contempt and found to have violated Rule 11(b), the motion they filed struck, 5,000 US dollars from one and 2,500 from the other payable to the court within thirty days, referral to the Supreme Court of Ohio's Office of Disciplinary Counsel, and the Chief Judge asked to decide whether anything further was needed for the contempt. The judge then recused himself and asked for the case to be reassigned to another district judge in another seat of court, which is what the fabrications finally cost the client: not a fine, a new judge.
