Professor Mehtab Khan was interviewed by WFMJ Channel 21 News in Youngstown, Ohio, in a story titled “When A.I. goes rogue, who’s responsible?” Professor Khan addressed a series of questions about liability for harm caused by A.I. agents.

Professor Khan emphasized that A.I. products, like all consumer products, are already covered by a range of consumer, labor, cybersecurity, and antitrust laws. She explained that A.I. companies can potentially be held liable for problems with the “product design.”

Professor Khan identified two main concerns of legal scholars with emerging A.I. technologies. First, in the short term, she explained that “we need to apply existing obligations, as far as cybersecurity, privacy, consumder protection, and labor protections.” Second, she identified the longer-run risk that “we would place too much power in the hands of companies to self-regulate.”

Debbie Hoffman, Director of the P. Kelly Tompkins Leadership and Law Center, has been named an inaugural nominee for the Mortgage Bankers Association’s mPower Visionary Awards, recognizing women making an impact in the mortgage banking industry.

As a nominee, Hoffman will attend the mPowering You Summit on October 10, 2026, in Chicago, held in conjunction with the Mortgage Bankers Association’s Annual Convention & Expo.

Hoffman helped bring the Mortgage Banking Bound program to Cleveland State University, working with the Mortgage Bankers Association, CSU’s Monte Ahuja College of Business, and mortgage industry leaders to launch the program in 2025. She continues to teach the course, which brings industry professionals directly into the classroom and introduces students to the business, legal, regulatory, and operational aspects of residential mortgage banking.

The program has continued to grow at CSU, including the development of a Mortgage Banking Certificate, and Hoffman is working with the Mortgage Bankers Association and the Monte Ahuja College of Business to explore expanding mortgage banking education at the graduate level.

While in Chicago, Hoffman will also meet with mortgage banking leaders to continue developing industry partnerships and opportunities for CSU students.

Legal Education-in-Residence Howard E. Katz made a presentation on Strategies and Techniques for Teaching at the inaugural Aspen Leading Edge Academy, where fifty professors participated in a one-day forum focused on advancing how law is taught and learned. The sessions were held at Boston University’s College of Law, and provided the attendees (who were nominated by the deans of the law schools in the New England area), with evidence-based teaching strategies and practice-ready approaches to improve learning outcomes and better prepare students for professional success. Professor Katz’s presentation focused on design principles to consider when planning courses and individual classes.

On October 3, Professor Jonathan Witmer-Rich was quoted in an article on Cleveland.com titled, “The Cornell 7 case highlights a loophole in New York’s rape laws. Ohio takes a different approach.” The article explains a key difference between New York law and Ohio law regarding rape and sexaul assault, related to the the Cornell University rape investigation.

Professor Witmer-Rich explained that under Ohio law, a person may be legally incapable of consenting to sexual activity if they are “substantially impaired.” While this standard is not very specific, he explained that a person’s “substantial impairment” can be proven by evidence about how well they were able to carry out basic functions, like walking and talking.

New York, in contrast, requires proof either that the defendant drugged the victim or that the victim was actually unconscious or unable to communicate. A victim’s “substantial impairment” due to voluntary intoxication is not a sufficient basis for a rape conviction under New York law. Professor Witmer-Rich explained that this feature of New York law would make it more difficult to obtain a conviction in the circumstances alleged in the Cornell case.

The first cohort of online JD students to take the Appellate Practice Clinic prevailed on their first case before the Eighth District Court of Appeals. JDO students Taylor Bush, Madeline Clark, and Meghan Norcross all worked on the case, under the supervision of Professor Doron Kalir.

The facts of the case were as follows: In a Small Claims Court , Mr. H sued Mr. D for a faulty repair job on his car. Both parties received 40-day notice prior to the hearing. On the eve of the hearing, just hours before it was set to begin, Mr. D sent a short, hand-written request to the Court asking to delay the hearing by more than 100 days. The Magistrate denied the motion, and proceeded with the hearing the next day. Mr. D did not appear, so, Mr. H. – who appeared pro-se – prevailed on the merits and won some $5,000 judgment in his favor.

Mr. D then “lawyered up,” and timely filed objections to the magistrate’s decision with the common pleas court judge. The judge rejected those objections and affirmed the magistrate’s decision. Mr. H — through his lawyer — timely appealed to the Eighth District Court of Appeals. 

That’s where the Appellate Clinic sprung into action. The Clinic contacted Mr. D, who until then appeared pro-se, and offered to help him on his appeal. He happily agreed. 

The three students began by carefully reviewing the record below. They then focused on the issues at hand – which included the law of motions for continuance, the relevant standard of review, and the special nature of a small-claims proceedings – and conducted thorough legal research on each. Then each student was tasked with writing a separate section of the Brief. 

Later in the Semester, each student practiced conducting Oral Argument on that case. (The actual case was decided without oral argument.) 

On April 23, 2026, the Eighth District Court of Appeals released its Opinion, affirming the decision below. In essence, the Court accepted nearly all of the Clinic’s arguments in favor of its client and denied all claims to the contrary.

The client was truly satisfied. In his brief “Thank You” note, he thanked the students “so much for all the hard work” they completed. He further noted that “what you guys do is amazing and I’m sure there are many others who really appreciate your hard work.”

Professor Doron Kalir, the Appellate Practice Clinic Director, supervised the work and served as Counsel of Record.