The First District Court of Appeals has published a notice of proposed amendments to its Local Rules and is inviting public comment through December 31, 2025.
Because Durst Kerridge practices extensively in the First District, we closely monitor all local rule changes and other Court developments.
The proposed amendments, which can be viewed in full here, include both substantive changes and technical updates designed to improve clarity and efficiency.
The proposed amendments are summarized below.
Rule Renumbering
Several rules have been renumbered to align with the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. Former Rules 4.1 (Motion to Stay Execution of Appealed Civil Judgment) and 4.2 (Bail and Stay of Execution in Criminal Cases) are now Rules 7 and 8, respectively. Former Rule 22 (Media Coverage of Court Proceedings) is now Rule 44.
Forms
Forms will no longer be embedded within the rules themselves but will instead be available on the Court’s website.
Appointed Counsel (Rule 3.4)
The rule governing appointed counsel is being significantly revised:
- Rule 3.4(A) now clarifies that appointment may be requested in parental termination and dependency cases in addition to criminal cases.
- New Rule 3.4(C) addresses the scope of appointments, clarifying that appointments do not extend to appeals to the Supreme Court of Ohio without a separate motion.
- Rule 3.4(D) has been modified to require that payment requests be submitted through the Ohio Public Defender’s Court Appointed Billing System (CABS) in addition to filing with the clerk.
- New Rule 3.4(E) addresses appointments in cases other than criminal, dependency, or parental termination matters.
Motions to Stay (Rule 7)
Newly renumbered Rule 7 has been modified to address instances where application to the trial court for a stay is not required by rule, statute, or otherwise.
Record and Transcripts
Several changes affect the record on appeal:
- New Rule 9(D) provides guidance on how to supplement the record when exhibits are missing.
- Rule 10(B)(2) now requires more detailed information in motions for extension of time related to court reporter delays, including the number of transcripts completed, the number yet to be transcribed, estimated length, and completion date.
Extensions of Time (Rule 14)
Rule 14(A) and (B) clarify that automatic extensions are available in regular calendar cases receiving expedited treatment. However, Rule 14(D) now specifies that automatic extensions are not permitted in abortion bypass cases, parental termination cases, denial of bond appeals, or interlocutory Marsy’s Law appeals. Additionally, automatic extensions are not available once a notice of oral argument or submission on briefs has issued.
Motions (Rule 15)
Rule 15 now sets explicit page limits for motions and responses—15 pages in at least 12-point font—and incorporates formatting requirements from Rule 19.
Briefs
Several changes affect briefs:
- Rule 16.1(A)(7) now requires that any order from which error is assigned or review is sought must be attached to appellant’s brief, not just the final order. For example, in a criminal appeal challenging both the conviction and the denial of a motion to suppress, both the judgment entry and the entry denying the motion to suppress must be attached.
- Rule 16.1(B) addresses situations where an appellee does not wish to file a brief or wishes to join another party’s brief.
- Rule 16.1(D) provides clarity on citing multiple transcripts that are not consecutively paginated.
- Rule 16.1(H) is a new subsection addressing amended briefs, providing: “Any amended brief, except for those filed in response to an order striking the brief, shall contain an explanation as to why an amended brief is being filed. If the amended brief is filed after the deadline for the brief, it must also be accompanied by a motion for leave.”
E-Filing (Rule 13.1)
The rule has been updated to remove the requirement to submit proposed orders with motions. The rule now also specifies when filing fees will be collected and provides clarity on the processing of e-filed documents and when electronic file stamps are applied.
Oral Argument (Rule 21)
Rule 21 has been modified, as follows:
- Upon receipt of a notice of oral argument, parties must now notify the Court of any scheduling conflicts within five days.
- Requests to participate in oral argument remotely via Zoom may now be made at any time before the close of briefing.
- This is not new, but I was not previously aware – a written motion can be filed to enlarge the time for oral argument beyond the 15 minutes per side that is typically permitted.
Original Actions (Rule 33)
Rule 33 has been substantially revised, including new procedural requirements, a new docket statement, scheduling rules (including discretionary case management conferences), a requirement that evidence submitted must comply with the Ohio Rules of Evidence, formatting requirements for dispositive motions, new rules governing motions for extension of time, and a provision that the Court can dismiss original actions for failure to prosecute.
New Artificial Intelligence Rule (Rule 45)
New Rule 45 addresses the use of generative artificial intelligence in court filings. However, the rule does not appear to impose any requirements beyond what would already be expected of attorneys under Rule 11 and R.C. 2323.51 (unlike the AI rule proposed by the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas last year, which was never adopted). The new rule:
- Defines “Artificial Intelligence” and “Generative AI.”
- Makes attorneys and parties responsible for reviewing, validating, and correcting any AI-generated content before submission.
- Provides that by filing documents containing AI-generated content, attorneys represent to the Court that they have ensured accuracy, relevance, and compliance with applicable laws, procedural rules, and ethical obligations.
- Authorizes the Court to strike filings and/or impose sanctions for “inaccurate, misleading, or fabricated” AI-generated content.
Public Comment Period
The First District invites comments from the public, legal community, and all stakeholders. Comments may be submitted via email to COA@firstdistrictcoa.org with the subject line “Local Rules.” The public comment period closes on December 31, 2025.
About Durst Kerridge
Durst Kerridge maintains an extensive appellate practice and has achieved appellate victory at the highest levels, including in the United States Supreme Court and Supreme Court of Ohio. Our Appellate Practice is led by Partner Paul R. Kerridge, former Law Clerk to Justice Patrick F. Fischer of the Supreme Court of Ohio and Judge Chad A. Readler of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
To contact Durst Kerridge, reach out to Alex J. Durst or Paul R. Kerridge.
