Maryland Has Developed a Body of State Law Regarding Hallucinated Citations

“The coupling of AI’s confident, friendly tone with its well-written, well-reasoned output creates what is aptly described as ‘AI’s siren song.’ AI’s well-written output, confidently presented, can readily mislead users into trusting its accuracy and lulling them into complacency, just as the sirens of legend tricked sailors into jumping from their ships onto lethal, rocky shores.”  A. Spence and  N. Bustard, “Beyond the Hype and Fear: Implementing Artificial Intelligence in a Law Practice,” 7 Md. B.J. 79, 81 (2026).

“Whereas a human being might simply answer ‘I don’t know’ when faced with a question that exceeds their knowledge, AI models typically do not admit defeat.”  A. Spence and N. Bustard, Practical AI for Lawyers: Meeting the Challenges of Competence, Confidentiality, and Candor, 56 U. Balt. L.F. 331, 340 (2026).

CITATIONS TO HALLUCINATIONS BY ATTORNEYS

The leading Maryland decision on hallucinations is Mezu v. Mezu, 267 Md. App. 354, 367 (2025), cert. dismissed, 493 Md. 184 (2026).  It resulted in referral of the attorney to Bar Counsel.  There, the attorney tried to shift the blame to a law clerk. Maryland Fake Citation Case – Court Issues a Warning – Referral to Atty. Grievance Comm’n. (Nov. 2, 2025).  The Court wrote: “Before addressing the merits of the issues raised, we address this problem. We do so as a warning to others and to determine the court’s appropriate response in this case.” It explained:

This case… appears to be the first where the Maryland appellate courts have addressed the problems that occur when lawyers use AI, without the diligence required, in drafting briefs. The failure to use AI responsibly in legal research raises ethical issues and can result in sanctions when used improperly. It is unquestionably improper for an attorney to submit a brief with fake cases generated by AI.

The key facts applicable to sanctions were: “In determining whether to refer counsel to the Attorney Grievance Commission, we have considered the nature and severity of the conduct in this case. The brief here did not contain an isolated instance of a citation mistake. Rather, it cited multiple cases that did not exist, as well as others that did not support the proposition for which they were cited. When asked at oral argument about the concern when a lawyer obviously has not read the cases cited to the court, counsel indicated that this was not a unique circumstance, stating that he typically did not read the cases he cited in pleadings submitted to the court. Based on all the circumstances, we shall refer this case to the Attorney Grievance Commission.”

On January 14, 2026, the Court issued Boyd v. Lee, 2026 WL 111263 (Appl. Ct. Md. Jan. 14, 2026)(unreported), which is discussed in Hallucinations Are “Old News,” But a Recent Maryland Decision Addresses Ethical Contours  (Jan. 17, 2026).  There, an appeal was dismissed for procedural violations. The Court reiterated that:

It is unacceptable for counsel (or unrepresented parties, for that matter) to submit or attempt to rely on statements or authorities that are fabricated, hallucinated, or unsubstantiated, whether they are generated by artificial intelligence tools or “real” ones.  The signature of an attorney contained in a brief constitutes a certification that the attorney has read the brief, and that “to the best of the attorney’s knowledge, information, and belief there is good ground to support it[.]” Md. Rule 1-311(b). Thus, signing and filing a brief that contains hallucinated law may implicate the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct. Mezu v. Mezu, 267 Md. App. 354, 369, 374 (2025) (holding that counsel’s submission of brief with hallucinated case law implicated the Rules of Professional Conduct and referring case to the Attorney Grievance Commission). This conduct can also result in sanctions. Id. at 371-72 (declining to impose monetary sanctions when none were requested by opposing counsel).

“Though the court did not impose monetary sanctions against the three attorneys, it did issue public reprimands, disqualified them from the case, and referred them to the Alabama State Bar. Butler Snow narrowly escaped sanctions itself, but it was unable to escape the nationwide embarrassment, media ridicule, and client loss.”  Spence and Bustard, “Practical AI,” 56 U. Balt. L.F. at 338–39.

That was followed by Maryland Copy and Paste “Hallucinations” Case, citing Ajakaiye v. Oladipupo, 2026 WL 1733336 (Appl. Ct. Md. Jun. 16, 2026). There, “[t]he Court’s review of Father’s briefing confirms that, for most of the offending citations, Father’s counsel simply copied and pasted from the Father’s pro se second motion for reconsideration. Father’s counsel further concedes that he did not confirm whether AI was used in the Father’s preparation of that second motion for reconsideration, seemingly relying on the fact that the pro se briefing was drafted with the assistance of Father’s sister, who is a non-practicing attorney (having attended a foreign law school).”  Citing Mezu, the matter was referred to the Attorney Grievance Commission.

Next, in Benjamin v. State, 2026 WL 2491126 (App. Ct. Md. Aug. 25, 2026)(unreported), an appellant’s request to file a corrected brief three days before appellee’s briefing date was denied. “In this case, however, the brief was filed before the decision in Mezu, the inaccuracies were not excessive and did not include totally made up cases, counsel tried to correct the errors before the State filed its brief, and the State does not contend that it was harmed. Given these circumstances, we shall not, as we did in Mezu, refer counsel to the Attorney Grievance Commission. We again urge counsel, however, to use AI responsibly and check the accuracy of all citations before submitting a brief to this Court, or any other court.” [emphasis added]. For a discussion of this decision, please see Maryland: No Sanctions for Apparent Hallucinations (Aug. 29, 2026).

CITATIONS TO HALLUCINATIONS BY UNREPRESENTED LITIGANTS

The Dorsey decision involved an informal brief by an unrepresented litigant. Dorsey v. Livramento, 2026 WL 1413152 (Appl. Ct. Md. May 20, 2026)(unreported), cert. denied, 496 Md. 453 (2026).  After citing Mezu, the Court wrote:

Although there is no parallel disciplinary action for pro se litigants, Maryland Rule 1-311(c) authorizes us to strike the offending filing. Where, as here, the filing is an appellant’s principal brief, striking it could result in dismissal under Maryland Rule 8-602(c)(5) for failure to file a brief….

We exercise our discretion to decline striking Mother’s informal brief in its entirety. As explained below, several issues are not properly before us, so we need not identify or address the problematic citations because we do not reach the merits of these issues. See infra, Parts I–III. However, this does not excuse the impropriety of such conduct. To the extent an issue is properly before us, we will strike from the brief any cases that are fictitious and any authorities that clearly do not support the propositions for which they are cited. See infra, Part IV, notes 8–17. Mother is warned and put on notice that continued citation of fabricated cases or misrepresented legal authorities may result in sanctions, including the striking of future filings in their entirety.

In footnotes 8 through 17 parts of the brief were stricken.

Meziane v. Aitouche, 2026 WL 1101776 (Appl. Ct. Md. Apr. 23, 2026), involved a self-represented litigant whose brief contained two apparently fictitious citations. The Court cited Mezu and wrote:

[I]ndeed, attorneys who submit filings containing fake citations may be referred to the Attorney Grievance Commission depending on the nature and severity of the misconduct…. Although there is no parallel disciplinary action for pro se litigants, at the least, Rule 1-311(c) authorizes us to strike the offending filing. Where, as here, the filing is an appellant’s principal brief, striking it could result in dismissal under Rule 8-602(c)(5) for failure to file a brief….

That said, given the significant rights involved for the parties here, we shall exercise our discretion and take no action regarding Mother’s brief and will address the merits of her appeal. This does not excuse Mother’s suspected misconduct. Rather, despite her reliance on inapposite and apparently fictitious authorities, we can sufficiently address the issues raised.

This month, the Court wrote that “despite being made aware of its fictitiousness by the State’s opposition to that motion, [appellant] still included it in his brief on appeal.”  Sare v. Central Collection Unit, 2026 WL 3093192 (Appl. Ct. Md. Oct. 1, 2026)(unreported).  After citing Mezu, the Court wrote: “Although there is no parallel disciplinary action for pro se litigants, at the least, Rule 1-311(c) authorizes us to strike the offending filing. Where, as here, the filing is an appellant’s principal brief, striking it could result in dismissal under Rule 8-602(c)(5) for failure to file a brief….  Although we have decided not to take further action regarding Sare’s brief and will address the merits of his appeal, this does not excuse his suspected misconduct. We caution that future filings submitted to the Court with fake citations may be struck.”

In another recent decision concerning an unrepresented litigant, the Appellate Court of Maryland wrote:

In its brief, the Commission noted that Appellant cited to cases that did not exist and that he further cited an existing case for a proposition it did not support. Appellant did not address the Commission’s concern and in his reply brief once again cited the non-existent case law or propositions. In conducting review of this matter, we have confirmed that the authorities and proposition identified by the Commission are non-existent. While we recognize that Appellant is self-represented in this appeal, a note of caution is appropriate. We recently discussed the ethical issues concerning the use of AI to conduct legal research or generate filings, including the risk of “hallucinated” citations. See Mezu v. Mezu, 267 Md. App. 354, 367–68 (2025). Further, the citation of fake cases in a brief implicates multiple Maryland Rules. See, e.g., Md. Rule 1-311(b). Indeed, attorneys who submit filings with fake citations may face sanctions and may be referred to the Attorney Grievance Commission. See Mezu, 267 Md. App. at 367, 374. Although there is no parallel disciplinary action for pro se litigants, Md. Rule 1-311(c) permits us to strike an offending filing, which, in turn, could cause a dismissal under Md. Rule 8-602(c)(5) for failure to file a brief. In this case, we shall exercise our discretion and take no action regarding Appellant’s citation to non-existent cases or proposition and thus address the merits while noting that this does not excuse Appellant’s presentation of invalid authorities to this Court.

In the Matter of Gary Brown, Jr., 2026 WL 3025765 (Appl. Ct. Md. Oct. 2, 2026).

In each unreported decision, the Court wrote: “This is an unreported opinion. This opinion may not be cited as precedent within the rule of stare decisis. It may be cited for its persuasive value only if the citation conforms to Rule 1-104(a)(2)(B).”

Among other things, it is important for Maryland attorneys to be aware of:

• Proposed Changes to the MD Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct Re: AI (Jul. 21, 2026);
• Maryland’s Proposed Anti-Hallucination Rule (Mar. 16, 2026);
• Child’s Best Interest Trumps Sanction for Possibly Hallucinated Case Citation (Mar. 15, 2026);
• “Hallucinations” by West’s CoCounsel? (Apr. 7, 2026);
• , Sanctions and Remedies Where Parties Submit Citations Hallucinated by Artificial Intelligence Programs—State Cases, 110 A.L.R.7th Art. 3 (2026).