Another Maryland Appellate “Hallucinations” Decision

The leading Maryland appellate decision on AI “hallucinations” is Mezu v. Mezu, 267 Md. App. 354, 367 (2025).  It resulted in a referral to Bar Counsel.

I have posted several blogs about it and following decisions.

• Maryland Copy and Paste “Hallucinations” Case (Jan. 17, 2026);
• Hallucinations Are “Old News,” But a Recent Maryland Decision Addresses Ethical Contours  (Jan. 17, 2026);
• Maryland Fake Citation Case – Court Issues a Warning – Referral to Atty. Grievance Comm’n. (Nov. 5, 2025)’
• Maryland’s Proposed Anti-Hallucination Rule (Mar. 16, 2026).

Benjamin v. State, 2026 WL 2491126 (App. Ct. Md. Aug. 25, 2026)(unreported), is the most recent.  Mr. Benjamin appealed denial of his suppression motion.  The Court affirmed.

His brief “contained multiple inaccurate case citations.” A procedural battle followed: “On September 3, 2025, appellant filed a notice of errata, attempting to correct the citation irregularities. On September 9, 2025, this Court treated the notice as a motion to correct the brief and denied the motion. On September 10, 2025, appellant filed a motion to strike his brief and file a corrected brief. On September 17, 2025, this Court denied appellant’s request, noting that it was filed three days before the State’s deadline to file its brief.”

The Court wrote:

On October 29, 2025, this Court issued its opinion in Mezu v. Mezu, 267 Md. App. 354, 367 (2025), noting “the problems that occur when lawyers use AI [artificial intelligence], without the diligence required, in drafting briefs.” In that case, where the brief cited multiple cases that did not exist, as well as others that did not support the proposition for which they were cited, and counsel stated at argument that he did not typically read the cases he cited to the Court, we referred the attorney to the Attorney Grievance Commission. Id. at 374.

Here, counsel for appellant has not admitted that the mistakes in the brief were due to the use of AI, but that seems likely. In assessing our response to the errors here, we reiterate that “[t]he 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.” Id. at 367.

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].

Some courts are applying a two-factor test to assessing sanctions for citation to fictitious cases or quotations that do not appear in a real case.  Cite Checking to Find Hallucinated Cases Deemed Insufficient – Part II – Verification and Candor Are Expected (Aug. 17, 2026).