Use of A.I. in Maryland Universities

Not a day goes by without at least one judicial decision addressing misuse of artificial intelligence in litigation, such as hallucinations or fabricated quotations.  See, e.g., D. Belson, “Avalanche” of likely AI-generated filings decried by MD judge in pro se case (Apr. 28, 2026); District of Maryland “Hallucination” Decision (May 5, 2026).

It is therefore interesting to read an article by Tiasia Saunders of the Capital New Service titled How AI misconduct cases are handled across Maryland campuses (The Daily Record May 1, 2026).

“All of the schools reviewed have published AI guidelines to provide suggestions on how to navigate using generative AI for schoolwork.”  Id.  Each school is engaged in a dialog and:

These conversations reflect a broader shift in how colleges are approaching AI in education, moving away from rigid prohibitions and toward more adaptive, guidance-based systems. As AI tools become increasingly embedded in everyday academic work, universities are being pushed to rethink not only how misconduct is defined, but how learning itself is assessed.

Id.

The article states that: “Across the Maryland university policies reviewed, AI-related cases are generally addressed under broader academic integrity frameworks rather than AI-specific standards, with determinations about sufficient evidence often left to faculty judgment.”  There appears to be “broad” professorial “authority to define acceptable AI use and determine whether a violation has occurred.” Id.

A review of academic integrity policies across Maryland universities shows that in some cases, faculty may resolve concerns informally with students; in other cases, they may be escalated through formal misconduct processes, creating a system where similar behavior can result in different outcomes.

Id.  The Assistant Director of Student Conduct at Johns Hopkins University reportedly said: “It’s quite possible that if two students do the same thing, one might receive one charge while another receives three,” “ adding that their office works to ensure outcomes are ultimately consistent.” Id.

The University of Maryland requires instructors to define how AI can be used in their courses, and students are expected to cite the use of AI tools properly. The university also emphasizes transparency and human oversight when using generative AI tools.

“Our code of academic integrity does not have a rule saying that AI use is prohibited,” said James Bond, assistant dean of students and director of student conduct. “Our code speaks to five different types of violations: cheating, facilitation of academic misconduct, fabrication, plagiarism and self-plagiarism.”

Id.

The Provost of St. Mary’s College is quoted as saying: “We found it was really kind of a losing battle to define what constituted AI misconduct, and that what we needed was a much broader reckoning of how we define misconduct to begin with….”  The College “now requires every syllabus to include an AI policy, emphasizing that expectations may vary by instructor and discipline, but that students must be clearly informed of those rules in advance.”  Id.

I co-teach “Civil Discovery in the Digital Age” at the University of Baltimore School of Law. Our Syllabus states:

Artificial intelligence (including generative artificial intelligence) is included within this policy. All submitted work must reflect student understanding and original thought.  Our policy is that you may use artificial intelligence; however, you are responsible for being aware of the ethical, legal, and other concerns, including those of “hallucinations” and lack of confidentiality in connection with AI.  In making your decision, you may choose to read A Review of Sedona’s “Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the Practice of Law” by The Hon. Xavier Rodriguez.  While this course does not prohibit use of these technologies, with the exception of Lexis and Westlaw, we request transparency (by noting and/or citing when AI has been used).

That may need to be revised.  What is AI?  ABA Formal Opinion 512 (2024), n. 1, states: “There is no single definition of artificial intelligence.”

It may be that spell check, automatic completion, or grammar checkers are a form of AI.  A Court’s Standing Order on A.I. (Mar. 14, 2026)(“I suggest that Standing Orders referring to ‘AI’ are clear at their core, but may be fuzzy at their edges.”).

I have written about the need for AI education.  Maryland Fake Citation Case – Court Issues a Warning – Referral to Atty. Grievance Comm’n. (Nov. 2, 2025).

In that post, I quoted extensively from Doug Austin, What’s Causing These AI Hallucinations and How to Fix It (Oct. 13, 2025).

Doug Austin’s solution to the use of AI is training and education:  “We need to treat gen AI models and other forms of automation with a similar level of caution we apply to handling hazardous materials or operating heavy machinery.”  He adds:

What’s causing these AI hallucinations? Something inherent in all of us – the desire to reduce effort, especially when we need to get things done quickly. Would you skip steps when handling hazardous materials? No, because we’ve all been trained to be careful with them. We need to learn to be just as careful when working with gen AI models, especially public LLMs like ChatGPT that are a “jack of all trades, master of none” when it comes to things like accurate case citations. Handle with care!

Doug also wrote: “The problem is a phenomenon known as ‘automation bias’, which is the tendency for people to believe a result just because it came from a computer program or algorithm. One example of automation bias is ‘Death by GPS’ where people drive their cars into a lake or off an unfinished bridge, just because the GPS told them to go that way (or they put their Tesla in ‘autopilot’ mode and went to sleep). In fact, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that GPS causes over 200,000 car accidents every year in the US.”  What’s Causing These AI Hallucinations and How to Fix It.