The issues raised by a Commonwealth Court judge regarding a brief filed by a Butler law firm were the result of human error — not artificial intelligence — the local attorneys said in a letter to the court filed late last week.

Attorney Tom Breth, of Dillon, McCandless, King, Coulter & Graham, addressed the claims of using “AI hallucinations” in the brief through a written statement provided to the Butler Eagle at the Knoch School Board meeting on Wednesday, Feb. 11. Breth is the district’s solicitor.

“The 36 cases cited in the brief, their respective citations, along with the 18 statutory and constitutional provisions cited in the brief, are all actual cases, citations, statutes and constitutional provisions,” Breth’s statement said. “None of them are artificial intelligence hallucinations.”

The Butler Eagle had earlier verified the legitimacy of all cases cited in the brief, which was filed in a Dec. 10 hearing in the case of South Side Area School District et al. v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, but had been unable to verify specific language questioned by the judge within the brief. Knoch is also a plaintiff in the case.

“The terms used and the legal principles asserted within the brief are consistent with the terms used and legal principles contained within the cases cited in the brief,” Breth’s statement continued.

Attorney Tom King of the law firm, in a Feb. 2 letter, addressed 10 issues raised by Commonwealth Court Judge Matthew Wolf in the case that first gathered attention for its focus on antidiscrimination protections for transgender high school students.

The Butler-based attorneys, positioned at the center of the controversy, continue to deny claims that they used “AI hallucinations” in that brief.

An AI hallucination is when an AI model produces confident, plausible-sounding but entirely fabricated or incorrect information, such as fake facts, citations or nonsensical data.

“The assertion that the brief contains artificial intelligence hallucinations is false as fully explained in the letter to the court,” Breth concluded in his statement.

Complying with a court order, King filed a letter along with four exhibits on Feb. 2 attributing the mistakes in the brief to human error, rather than AI hallucinations.

In his letter, King said the cases cited in the petitioners’ brief, their respective citations, the language in the brief and the legal principals asserted by the brief “are not artificial intelligence hallucinations. Any discrepancy in the language of Petitioners’ Brief is directly attributable to the drafter of the language.”

Two lawyers and a paralegal from King’s law firm, Dillon, McCandless, King, Coulter and Graham, drafted the brief and submitted affidavits, which are among the exhibits, King’s letter details.

The letter attributes the language discrepancies, including the use of quotation marks to “Mr. Uhlman,” who is not identified as an attorney on the law firm’s website.

The first issue is the incorrect placement of quote marks in an excerpt from a court ruling, according to King’s response. The case cited was a 1984 suit filed by Arsenal Coal Co. challenging regulations from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, which is now the Department of Environmental Protection.

The brief incorrectly quotes an excerpt from the ruling and omits a word by saying, “‘the hardship of compliance’ and the ‘risk of enforcement’ render the controversy ripe.”

But the quote marks were misplaced and the excerpt should have said, “‘the hardship’ of compliance and risk or ‘threat of enforcement’ render the controversy ripe,” the letter said.

The letter goes on to state that the second issue stems from an excerpt quoted in the brief from a ruling in a 2005 suit Pittsburgh Palisades Park LLC filed against the state saying, “standing exists where the challenged action ‘negatively affects’ the party in a concrete way.”

According to King’s letter, the excerpt should have read, “standing exists where the challenged action has ‘negatively impacted’ or ‘adversely affected’ the party in a concrete way.”

In the third issue, the brief cites a ruling in a 2019 suit filed by Firearm Owners Against Crime against the city of Harrisburg saying, “which confirmed that plaintiffs need not ‘invite prosecution’ to secure review of unlawful government action.”

The excerpt should have read, “which confirmed that plaintiffs need not ‘subject (themselves) to possible criminal prosecution’ or the ‘risk of prosecution’ to secure review of unlawful government action,” according to King.

The fourth issue involves an excerpt cited in the brief from a 1989 suit “Blackwell v. State Ethics Commission” saying, “in connection with the execution and administration of a law to an independent agency or an executive branch agency where the General Assembly first establishes primary standards and imposes upon others the duty to carry out the declared legislative policy in accordance with the general provision of the enabling legislation.”

According to King, the excerpt should have said, “‘in connection with the execution and administration of a law’ to an independent agency or an executive branch agency where the General Assembly first establishes ‘primary standards and imposes upon others the duty to carry out the declared legislative policy in accordance with the general provision of the enabling legislation.’”

In the fifth issue, the brief contains two citations from a ruling in a 1980 suit against the Pennsylvania Horse Racing Commission that say, “the basic policy choices must be made by the legislature” and “the legislation must contain adequate standards which will guide and restrain the exercise the delegated administrative functions.”

The first citation’s reference to the “legislature” did not capitalize the letter “l” and it should have been “Legislature,” according to King.

The sixth issue also involves a citation in the brief from the Arsenal Coal Co. ruling. The brief cited the ruling by saying, “the impact of the regulation as applied to the challenger is direct and immediate.”

The brief should have said “the ‘impact of the regulation[s]’ as applied to the challenger is ‘direct and immediate,’” according to King.

The seventh issue involves a citation in the brief from a 2018 suit against the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission saying, agencies “may not, under the guise of interpretation, enlarge a statute or engraft additional substantive requirements not included by the General Assembly.”

According to King, the citation should have read, agencies may not, “under the guise of gleaning legislative intent add, by interpretation a requirement not included by the General Assembly.”

In the eighth issue, the brief cites a 1997 suit against the Public Utility Commission saying, agency authority is limited to powers “‘expressly granted by the Legislature, together with those necessarily implied.’”

The brief should have said, agency authority is limited to powers “expressly granted by the Legislature, together with those necessarily implied,” according to King.

The ninth issue involves a citation in the brief from a 2017 suit against the Pennsylvania Workers’ compensation Appeal Board saying, “the General Assembly must make the ‘basic policy choices,’ leaving agencies to ‘fill in the details’ with ‘adequate standards and safeguards.’”

It should have said, “the General Assembly must make ‘basic policy choices,’ leaving agencies to fill in the details with ‘adequate standards’ and ‘safeguards,’” according to King.

The last issue involves a citation in the brief from a suit the Germantown Cab Co. filed against the Philadelphia Parking Authority in 2019 saying, “When an agency construction ‘frustrates legislative intent’ or is ‘inconsistent with the statute,’ courts withhold deference.”

It should have said, “When an agency construction frustrates ‘legislative intent’ or is ‘(in)consistent with the legislative intent’ or is ‘(in)consistent with the overall legislative design’ courts withhold deference,” according to King.