Attorney William B. Norman of Fairview Park, who represents Kaprise Sledge, 25, of Warren, in the March 2, 2024, shooting death of U.S. mail carrier Jonte Davis, 33, has been sanctioned by the Ohio 11th District Court of Appeals for artificial intelligence-related errors in a filing in an Ashtabula County case.

A long appeals court ruling outlines the artificial intelligence related errors found in the filing, Norman’s contention that they occurred because of the actions of a non-attorney staff member and a hearing held by the appeals court to address the errors.

The errors were in a Norman filing in an appeal for Norman’s client, Malikhi J.Coleman. In a May 19, 2025, response to the erroneous Norman filing, the Ashtabula County Prosecutor’s Office pointed out several false allegations in Norman’s filing that were “premised upon quotations that did not appear in the record.”

The prosecution filing requested sanctions against Norman, including a $6,000 reimbursement to the Ashtabula County Prosecutor’s office for the time it spent responding to the false information.

The appeals panel found that “the prosecutor never made the statements alleged” by Norman’s filing. The ruling states that on July 10, 2025, Norman “admitted a member of his staff used artificial intelligence (A.I. tools), which improperly generated ‘hallucinated’ quotes that did not exist.” Norman “stated he had taken steps to ensure AI would be properly used in future cases to avoid repeating the error.”

During an August 2025 hearing, an attorney representing Norman told the court that Norman “understands the difference between a public AI generative tools like ChatGPT and a proprietary fee subscription-based AI tool like Westlaw.” Norman told the court he “advised his staff not to upload sensitive materials to public AI generative tools, but his staff did so anyway.”

Norman’s attorney said Norman’s failure was in that Norman “didn’t catch the hallucinated quote. That was wrong. That was his responsibility.”

The Ashtabula County Prosecutor’s office stated in a later filing that the new policies Norman said he had instituted were “not proving effective,” as prosecutors had found other AI-generated errors — months after the August 2025 sanctions hearing held by the 11th District. In one filing, the following words were included: “Would you like me to draft the next argument section (e.g., argument 1-B on the ‘nature of the charge omission).” Norman later admitted that “such statements are found at the end of output prepared by the AI platform ChatGPT.”

SLEDGE HEARING

The issue of errors and sanctions came up at last week’s pretrial hearing in Sledge’s murder case before U.S. District Court Judge Donald C. Nugent in Cleveland federal court. A judgment entry following the hearing states that Kaprise Sledge was “fully advised” of the sanctions contained in the 11th District “opinion dated 3/20/26, imposing sanctions on Attorney William Norman.”

The entry states that Sledge wanted Norman to continue to serve as his lawyer. And it states that the next pretrial hearing in the Sledge case will be 9 a.m. May 22. The case has been focused on numerous motions filed by Sledge and co-defendant, Thomas Sledge. The filings have sought to have various types of evidence suppressed from trial. But the case docket shows no indication that Nugent has made any rulings on the motions yet.

The docket does note that the defense is expected to notify the judge “which motions they will withdraw and which motions (Kaprise Sledge) wishes to pursue.”

ATTORNEY SANCTIONS

For Norman’s misconduct, the 11th district ruling ordered Norman to pay a $2,000 fine with credit for $2,000 already paid to the Ashtabula County Prosecutor’s Office. The money was part of a “settlement” between Norman and the Ashtabula County’s Prosecutor’s Office, the ruling stated. The ruling stated that the $2,000 serves as notice that the court will impose “monetary sanctions for IA related misconduct that constitutes bad faith abuse of the judicial process.”

The ruling states that the $2,000 is “compensatory in nature, well within the range of documented costs incurred by” the Ashtabula County Prosecutor’s Office. The office spent 32.1 hours of staff time responding to the false allegations, the ruling states.

The sanction is “proportionate to the sanctions imposed by courts across the country in comparable AI related cases,” the ruling adds.

Further, the 11th District is referring Norman’s conduct to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Ohio Supreme Court for investigation, noting that informing the disciplinary counsel is “mandatory” under a provision that addresses a “question as to any lawyer’s dishonesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer.”

The issues raised by the Norman filing “implicates multiple provisions of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct,” including competence; candor; responsibilities regarding non-lawyer assistance; dishonesty; fraud; deceit or misrepresentation and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, the ruling states.

The ruling also requires Norman to “serve a copy of this judgment entry upon the presiding judge or administrative judge of every court in which (Norman) files a new appearance, enters a new case or otherwise undertakes representation” for two years. This sanction is meant to make sure each court is “informed of (Norman’s) prior misconduct and can exercise appropriate vigilance in reviewing (Norman’s) filings.”

Also for two years, Norman must include with every filing a certification that “all citations to legal authority contained in the filing have been independently verified by the attorney of record as being real, accurately quoted and still valid.”

Norman also must complete at least six hours of continuing education focused on issues such as “the ethical use of artificial intelligence in the practice of law” within 150 days. Norman also was removed as the attorney in the Coleman criminal case that contained the inaccurate filing.

Coleman was the person “most directly harmed by (Norman’s) incompetence,” the ruling states, noting that the “core” of the argument Norman made in Coleman’s case was “fabricated.”

Norman also was ordered to issue written apologies to the “persons defamed by the fabricated filing, including the Ashtabula County assistant prosecutor who conducted closing arguments in the Coeman case.

“The fabricated quotations also necessarily impugned the integrity of the trial judge … who presided over Mr. Coleman’s trial. By alleging that the prosecutor made inflammatory, improper statements during closing argument, the (filing) implicitly accused the trial judge of permitting such statements without correction sustaining objection or curative instruction,” the ruling states.

And the filing’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel impugned the work of Coleman’s prior attorney, the filing states. Letters to the three individuals were due within 30 days of March 30.

Norman has worked on dozens of cases in Trumbull and Ashtabula counties, according to an attorney search in the online case management system for both counties.