The Court’s email lists a number of exceptions, including “Members of the Bar of the District of Maryland, pro hac vice attorneys, and counsel of record in scheduled proceedings, who must present an electronic bar membership credential to court security personnel upon entry to the courthouse.  Attorneys authorized to practice will receive an email with instructions on obtaining their electronic bar credential.”

After listing those exceptions, it adds: “Excepted individuals other than those listed above, including accompanying members of an attorney’s staff, pro se litigants appearing for a scheduled proceeding, members of the media, and individuals with a special need, may obtain prior permission to bring an electronic device into the courthouse through the Electronic Device Request form on the Court’s website.”

Members of the Bar and staff may use the devices in witness conference rooms and attorney lounges. Use is prohibited inside courtrooms and in the presence of jurors outside of courtrooms.  Use is limited to that necessary to conduct court business.  Self represented litigants may request permission.

Counsel of record and their staff may use devices in courtrooms while at counsel table (unless ordered otherwise) provided that they are silent and not used for prohibited activity under Local Rule 506.

Clients are not considered staff and: “Excepted attorneys are responsible for advising their clients that the possession of portable electronic devices in the courthouse is generally prohibited.”

“Portable electronic devices” include laptop computers, cell phones, electronic tablets, cameras, smart watches, smart glasses, “and any other instruments capable of photograph, video recording, audio recording, or wireless communications (including earpieces and fitness trackers).”

Visitors permitted to bring devices into the courthouse “must keep these devices out of sight and either powered down or in silent mode….”

Visitors with special or disability-related needs, such as for medical monitoring purposes or to control hearing aids, must obtain limited authorization from the Clerk’s Office.

There are multiple exceptions for certain federal officials, jurors (with limitations), the news media and others.

The Court will provide lock boxes for excluded devices.  The order will take effect on November 2, 2026.

UPDATE: I. Round, Phones further restricted in MD federal court under new order – Maryland Daily Record (Sep. 17, 2026).

Cimplify discussed a number of cases and wrote:

As noted by Michael Berman in his blog for his site E-Discovery LLC, “Protective orders addressing the use of A.I. to review materials produced to an opponent in discovery are becoming routine.”

Cimplify concludes: “Given the risks associated with public AI platforms, protective orders that limit the ability of opposing parties to upload sensitive and confidential produced documents into a public AI tool are essential today. But the considerations associated with AI are changing rapidly. It’s important to keep that in mind when drafting your own protective order to protect your organization’s sensitive and confidential data.”

If AI has created a problem, can software fix it?  My answer is “no,” or at least not completely.

Lisa Burden published New legal tech tools aim to help lawyers avoid AI hallucinations (Daily Record Aug. 28, 2026).  “As courts across the country continue to sanction attorneys for submitting AI-generated briefs containing nonexistent citations, a new corner of the legal technology industry has emerged — companies building tools designed to catch hallucinated cases before they reach a judge.”

The article discusses “a dedicated platform built to detect and prevent AI hallucinations in legal citations” and another that “integrates with platforms such as LexisNexis and is designed to help attorneys verify citations and supporting materials by displaying source documents alongside legal writing.”  Ms. Burden  reports:

These verification platforms scan legal briefs, motions and memoranda, checking citations and flagging cases that may have been invented, misstated or misused. The companies behind them say their goal is not to replace lawyers but to provide a safeguard as generative AI becomes a routine part of legal practice.

The article ends with a caution: “And even with safeguards, lawyers can’t delegate their professional responsibilities to technology….”

While there is contrary case law, in my opinion, that is correct:

• Cite Checking to Find Hallucinated Cases Deemed Insufficient – Part II – Verification and Candor Are Expected (Aug. 17, 2026);
• Cite Checking to Find Hallucinated Cases Deemed Insufficient (May 3, 2026).

In a prior post, I wrote that sometimes government personnel use personal systems to conduct government business.  I suggested that it is not a good idea.

A Reuters article authored by Nate Raymond, Former Fauci adviser pleads guilty to conspiring to conceal records (Aug. 19, 2026), reinforces that idea:

A former adviser to infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci pleaded guilty on Tuesday to conspiring to evade public records laws and conceal government documents related to grant research funding and the COVID-19 pandemic….  The 78-year-old had been indicted in April on charges related to what prosecutors said was a scheme to thwart public records requests received by the agency beginning in April 2020 related to COVID-19 research grants.

The relevant part of the Reuters article is:  “Anticipating their communications would be sought through Freedom of Information Act requests, Morens and others agreed to correspond using Morens’ personal email account instead of his government one, prosecutors said.” [emphasis added].

Fifteen years ago yesterday, frustrated that a legal-media conglomerate had put a decade of my articles behind a paywall, I started Ball in Your Court. From that christening to this quinceañera, I’ve penned 283 posts viewed 690,650 times. More than 2,000 people subscribe to receive them. I’m grateful to everyone who tolerates the updates and indebted to the roughly half who take the time to click through.

Everyone practicing in any area of electronic discovery owes a debt of gratitude to Craig.

A small sample of his writings—just this year—includes:

• The Annotated ESI Protocol
• Guide to Deep Fake Evidence
• E-Evidence Workbook 2026
• Leery Lawyer’s Guide to AI and LLMs
• Forms That Function
• Litigator’s Guide to Metadata

Craig’s 638-page Electronic Evidence Workbook is a great teaching manual.  I always enjoyed his introduction:

 Despite its complexity, all digital content—photos, music, documents, spreadsheets, databases, social media, and communications—exist in one common form: as faint electric charges or impossibly tiny reversals of magnetic polarity. These minute polar fluctuations are read by a detector flying above the surface of a spinning disk on a cushion of air one-thousandth the width of a human hair in an operation akin to a jet fighter flying at more than 800 times the speed of sound less than a millimeter above the ground, precisely counting every blade of grass it passes!

My estimate is that it would fill a terabyte or more to list all of his contributions, including his many expert engagements, presentations, writings, special master appointments, law school teaching positions and materials, forensic certifications, academic degrees,  and other accomplishments.

I have relied on his materials, such as:

• Book Review: Craig Ball, “The Leery Lawyer’s guide to AI and LLMs in Trial Practice”
• Book Review: Craig Ball, “Forensic Tells: The Litigator’s Guide to Detecting Deepfakes and Authenticating Digital Evidence”

I have often cited his works, e.g., District of Maryland Gives Qualified Approval to Non-Forensic Downloads of Social Media Data and Another A.I. Protective Order – Part 10, to cite only two.

So, thank you Craig—and please keep posting, presenting, teaching, and writing!

The opinion is reported at Guthrie v. Vincenti, bypass cert. denied, 490 Md. 138 (2025), subsequent opinion, 269 Md. App. 680 (2026), cert. denied, __ Md. __ (Aug. 21, 2026). The successful outcome is described in Supreme Court of Maryland Denies Cert Petition in Guthrie v. Vincenti – Rifkin Weiner Livingston LLC (Aug. 21, 2026).

For coverage in today’s Baltimore Sun, see Racquel Bazos, Maryland Supreme Court won’t hear Guthrie’s case to restore council seat.  After reporting the statement by Mr. Guthrie’s attorney, the article states:

Vincenti’s representatives disputed that claim, saying the law is clear.

“Unfortunately, Mr. Gansler continues to perpetuate an interpretation of the law that is baseless. Every judge from the trial court to the Appellate Court to the Maryland Supreme Court twice has reached the same conclusion, and that conclusion is directly contrary to Mr. Gansler‘s statement,” said Michael Berman, one of Vincenti’s attorneys, on behalf of the firm Rifkin Weiner Livingston.

“The applicable Maryland constitutional provision, which we call the clean government clause, is unambiguous and was properly applied by the courts at every level,” he said.

For prior blogs discussing my oral argument and earlier rulings, please see

• Oral Argument in the Appellate Court of Maryland in Guthrie v. Vincenti (Feb. 1, 2026);
• Appellate Court of Maryland Decision in Guthrie v. Vincenti (May 6, 2026).

DIGITAL MEDIA OFFERED IN OPEN COURT

Paper exhibits are the default choice.  Maryland Rule 20-106(e)(1) states: “Unless otherwise approved by the court, a document offered into evidence as an exhibit in open court shall be offered in paper form. The document shall be appropriately marked.”

However, Maryland’s Digital Media Rule, Rule 20-106(e)(3), states: “Digital media offered in open court and included in the record pursuant to Rule 2-516, 3-516, or 4-322 shall be (A) submitted using a digital storage platform approved by the State Court Administrator and (B) referenced in the MDEC system by docket entry.”  [emphasis added].

Rule 1-202(j) defines digital media as “material in an audio, audiovisual, or video format that can be transmitted and stored electronically.”

The Rule applies to “digital media” included in the record under Rule 2-516, Rule 3-516, or Rule 4-322.  The first two Rules address civil lawsuit. Rule 4-322 applies to criminal cases.

• In courts of general jurisdiction, the Circuit Courts, Rule 2-516(b)(1)(A) states that: “A party who offers or uses an audio, audiovisual, or video recording at a hearing or trial shall: (A) ensure that the recording is marked for identification and made part of the record and that an additional copy is provided to the court….”
  • The Committee Note to Rule 2-516 adds: “A party may provide the court with a copy of a recording in a physical media format or in a digital media format using a digital storage platform approved by the State Court Administrator.”
  • The Rule states: “A party who offers or uses a transcript of the recording at a hearing or trial shall ensure that the transcript is made part of the record.”
  • The circuit court can appoint an alternate custodian under Rule 2-516(a)(2): “Unless the court orders otherwise, all exhibits shall remain in the custody of the clerk.  If the court orders that the custodian of an exhibit be someone other than the clerk, the court shall: (A) state the identity of the custodian on the record; (B) instruct the custodian, until relieved of the responsibility by law or by court order, to secure the exhibit until final determination of the action, including all appellate proceedings, and retain the exhibit as required by Rule 16-405 and any statutory retention provisions; and (C) instruct the clerk to make a docket entry identifying the court-ordered custodian of the exhibit.” [emphasis added].
• In the State of Maryland courts of limited jurisdiction, the District Courts, Rule 3-516(a) states
  • That “[a]ll exhibits marked for identification at hearing or trial, whether or not offered in evidence and, if offered, whether or not admitted, form part of the record.”
  • Subsection (a) adds: “With leave of court, a party may substitute a photograph or copy for any exhibit.”
  • The new Rule also states in Subsection (b): “In an action where an appeal would be tried de novo, exhibits shall be returned to the parties at the conclusion of the proceeding unless the court orders otherwise.”
  • Under Subsection (c), in an action where an appeal would be heard on the record made in the District Court, exhibits shall remain in the custody of the District Court clerk unless the court orders otherwise.” [emphasis added].

Rule 7-109 addresses use of digital media in on-the-record appeal. A Committee Note states: “Exhibits that are audio, audiovisual, or video recordings may be stored and accessed using a digital storage platform approved by the State Court Administrator.  Absent any dispute as to the authenticity or accuracy of the file, the file stored on the approved digital storage platform is considered the original for the purposes of this Rule.”

• Rule 4-322(c) applies in criminal matters.
  • It generally tracks Rule 2-516 and permits an alternative custodian. It provides for the return of exhibits in the case of a de novo appeal.
  • Subsection (b) adds: “A party who offers or uses computer-generated evidence at any proceeding shall preserve the computer-generated evidence, furnish it to the clerk in a manner suitable for transmittal as a part of the record on appeal, and present the computer-generated evidence to an appellate court if the court so requests.”

Notably, under Rule 20-301(b): “A hyperlink embedded in a submission is not a part of the official record unless it is linked to another document that is a part of the official record.”

DIGITAL MEDIA SUBMITTED WITH MOTIONS

Under Rule 1-322(a), filing of pleadings, papers, and other items, is with the Clerk and “[n]o item may be filed directly by electronic transmission, except…  (6) digital media submitted using a digital storage platform approved by the State Court Administrator.” The Reporter’s Note added: “Proposed new subsection (a)(6) authorizes digital media, as defined by Rule 1-202, to be transmitted using a digital storage platform approved by the State Court Administrator.”

Rule 20-301(a)(4) (“official record”) states that the official record of an action will include all “audio, audiovisual, or video recording exhibits, including digital media,” that are made part of the record under Rule 2-516, 3-516, or 4-322.

The Reporter’s Note added: “Recordings made part of the record pursuant to Rule 2-516, Rule 3-516, or Rule 4-322 may be on physical media, such as a hard drive, disc, or flash drive, but also may be submitted digitally using an approved platform. The current provisions of Rule 20-301 do not incorporate a digital submission that is stored outside of MDEC[1] into the official record in an action.”  [emphasis added].

RECORD IN APPELLATE COURTS

The Committee Note to Rule 8-413(a)(4) (contents of the record on appeal) states that “the original of any audio, audiovisual, or video recording made part of the record pursuant to Rules 2-516, 3-516, or 4-322” is part of the record on appeal.  The Committee Note adds:  “Exhibits that are audio, audiovisual, or video recordings may be stored and accessed using a digital storage platform approved by the State Court Administrator. Absent any dispute as to the authenticity or accuracy of the file, the file stored on the approved digital storage platform is considered the original for the purposes of this Rule.”

It adds that: “A party who offers or uses an audio, audiovisual, or video recording in a format not in common use by the general public is required to provide the recording to the clerk in a medium and format suitable for transmittal as part of the record. See Rule 2-516 (b) and Rule 4-322 (c) pertaining to the use of a recording at a hearing or trial.”

Further, the certificate of the clerk of the lower court shall identify “any digital media included in the record and instructions for access by the appellate court….”

MDEC Rule 16-905(d) states: “If a case record consists of digital media, a copy of the record shall consist of a document containing instructions for accessing the digital media.”

Rule 20-101(f) states: “Electronic filing” does not include digital media submitted and maintained on a digital storage platform approved by the State Court Administrator.

Rule 16-918(a, c) provides for public access to digital media at court kiosks. However, Rule 16-905(e) provides: “A custodian may remove metadata from an electronic document before providing the electronic document to an applicant by using a software program or function or converting the electronic document into a different format.”

This blog was initially posted on  Electronic Discovery Reference Model.

_____

[1] “MDEC” is the Maryland court’s electronic filing system.  See Rule 20-101(m).  “MDEC” is the acronym for “Maryland Electronic Courts.”  It has two components: 1) electronic filing; and, 2) electronic case management.

Mr. Round reports that the Judicial ethics opinion arose out of the lawsuit against the Judge: “The facts in the ethics committee’s opinion closely mirror the case of Nathan Charles, an immigration attorney in Baltimore who represented himself in contentious divorce and custody proceedings….  Charles has sued judges of the Montgomery County Circuit Court, alleging his rights to free speech and due process were violated because he criticized the court and all of its judges. Both lawsuits were filed in U.S. District Court. Charles represented himself in the family law proceedings and the lawsuits against the judges.”  Id.

The Judicial Ethics Committee “concludes on the facts given that the Requester [a circuit court Judge] likely is not required to recuse for any objective reason. Recusal is required only if the Requester subjectively determines that the Requester is not able to remain fair and impartial.”  The latter was determined to not be the case here.

Maryland Judicial Ethics Opinion 2026-22 (Aug. 10, 2026), begins by framing the issue:

Issue: Must a judge recuse from a matter in which a litigant has sued the judge in other jurisdictions and has disclosed filing a disciplinary complaint against the judge?

Answer: No, unless the judge determines subjectively that the judge is unable to remain fair and impartial in the matter.

The self-represented litigant had sued the Judge and also filed a Complaint with the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities.  The Opinion recites that the self-represented litigant “has now moved to disqualify the Requester [a circuit court judge] and every other active judge and magistrate in the Requester’s jurisdiction,” describing them as future defendants. (As noted in my prior post, leave to amend the Complaint was denied in federal court and it was dismissed.)

The Judicial Ethics Committee reviewed: Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct Rules 18-101 and 18-202; its standards of recusal decision, Opinion 2025-32 (Nov. 7, 2025); and, Art. IV of the Maryland Constitution, which applied here.

The Committee wrote that recusal has subjective and objective aspects. Subjectively, “[i]f the judge is not confident in the judge’s own subjective impartiality, then recusal is required on that basis alone.”  Objectively, the Judge must decide if there is a reasonable perception of impropriety.  The Committee added:

Disqualification in appropriate circumstances serves the goal of the judicial process not only being fair, but appearing to be fair….  At the same time, judges have a duty to preside when qualified that is as strong as their duty to refrain from presiding when not qualified. [cleaned up].

The Committee did not opine on the subjective prong. On the objective prong, it concluded that “there is not likely to be an objective reason to question the Requester’s impartiality based solely on the fact that the litigant has brought or may bring other claims against the Requester.  Here, the Requester’s knowledge of the litigant is based entirely on prior judicial proceedings.  Information derived entirely from judicial proceedings is not considered ‘personal.’”

The Committee wrote that a person with knowledge of all the facts “likely would understand that the litigant’s complaints are not a reasonable reaction to any action by the Requester, but a manifestation of dissatisfaction with decisions that have been adverse to the litigant.  The facts presented suggest strongly that the litigant is using the other complaints tactically, to try to remove the Requester and other judges and magistrates from the matter.  Judges have a responsibility to resist such tactics if they are able to maintain the necessary subjective impartiality.” [emphasis added].

Further, it wrote that “the litigant’s disclosure of the litigant’s complaints to the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities likely was improper.”

In an interesting footnote, the Committee suggested that the self-represented litigant may have overplayed his hand:

The duty to recuse also is qualified by the rule of necessity.  “[B]oth the constitutional and statutory provisions governing recusal must yield where recusal ‘would destroy the only tribunal in which relief . . . may be sought.’  Gordy v. Dennis, 176 Md. 106, 109 (1939).”  Opinion 2025-32 (Nov. 7, 2025) at 5.  If there were any merit to the litigant’s claims here, the rule of necessity could be implicated because the litigant seeks recusal of every judicial officer in the jurisdiction.

For posts on protecting the Judiciary, see

• Commentary: “Ex-Judges See ‘Grave Threat in Trump Official’s ‘War’ Talk” And “Senate Committee to Investigate Impeachment of Judges” (Nov. 16, 2025);
• “DOJ’s No. 2 Official Asks Lawyers to Join ‘War’ Against Judges”(Nov. 7, 2025);
• Another Judicial Impeachment Effort?  What Would Justice Rehnquist Say? – E-Discovery LLC (Jul. 9, 2025);
• Protecting the Judiciary – Bolch Judicial Institute (Mar. 23, 2025);
• “Pizzas Sent to Judges’ Homes in Name of Judge’s Murdered Son” (Apr. 17, 2025);
• Protecting the Judiciary – Again;
• Protecting the Judiciary Against This Ill-Advised “Impeachathon”;
• Protecting the Judiciary –  Article of Impeachment:  “It’s Déjà vu All Over Again”[1];
• Protecting the Judiciary From Another Dangerous, Fact-Free Impeachment Demand;
• Protecting the Judiciary and the Rule of Law – Frivolous Articles to Impeach Federal Judge Filed;
• Protecting the Judiciary and the Rule of Law;
• Maryland’s Protection of the Judiciary (Apr. 10, 2024);
• American Bar Association Statement on Threats Against the Judiciary (Apr. 8, 2024);
• Maryland Bills to Protect Judges and Their Children (Feb. 23, 2024);
• I Hear Crickets From the American Bar Association About Threats Against Colorado Justices (Jan. 27, 2024);
• Judge Paul Grimm: The Judiciary is Under Attack.  Lawyers Need to Defend It (Oct. 24, 2023);
• Threats Against the Colorado Supreme Court Must Be Called Out (Dec. 23, 2023);
• Maryland Passes “Watered-Down Judicial Security Bill”  (Apr. 12, 2025);
• Judicial Conference of the U.S. – Inadequate Funding for Security (Apr. 23, 2025);
• Why Impeachment Threats Against Judges Will Fail: Legal Insight (Bloomberg Mar. 6, 2025);
• Letter from Paul W. Grimm Regarding Threats and Attacks on Judges (Feb. 10, 2025);
• The Judiciary Is Under Attack. Lawyers Have a Duty to Defend It (Bloomberg Law Oct. 24, 2023);
• Statement of the American Bar Association: ABA stands firmly with statement of Chief Justice John Roberts in rejecting inappropriate calls for judicial impeachment (Mar. 18, 2025);
• American Bar Association president speaks out against attacks on judges and lawyers : NPR (Mar. 11, 2025);
• ABA condemns remarks questioning legitimacy of courts and judicial review (Feb. 11, 2025).

The program covered authentication issues regarding acknowledged and unacknowledged GenAI evidence, as well as the proposed Maryland anti-hallucination rule and a proposed amendment to its old, but innovative rule on computer-generated evidence.

General Maryland A.I. case law was discussed, as well as three Maryland decisions on hallucinated cases.  Several important federal and state decisions were also covered.

A deep dive was taken into the details of the well-known Pikesville deep fake audio case, with a presentation of some of the expert evidence used in debunking that audio.

AI protective orders were discussed, among other topics.

The afternoon session consisted of three demonstrative Q&A sessions.

First, an expert witness examined an actual deepfake video and provided the basis for, and his opinion that, it was a deepfake.

Next, two parties represented by counsel, but without an expert proffered and objected to authentication of that deepfake video.

Finally, two unrepresented parties in a contested family law case attempted to present and object to that video.

Sanctions for hallucinated citations under special provisions regarding best interests of a child were also discussed.

Craig illustrated the ease of making a deepfake:

Craig Ball Deepfake

The school districts’ assignment comes from the Artificial Intelligence Ready Schools Act, a bill that Gov. Wes Moore signed in May. It required the Maryland State Department of Education to issue its own recommendations and gave the school districts 120 days from the day that guidance was issued to get their assignments done.

It adds:

Those guidelines include eight elements for schools to consider when approaching how and what AI tools will be used in their classrooms, including data privacy, technology bias and ensuring classroom instruction is still “human-centered.” It also emphasizes that school districts should clearly determine what appropriate AI usage looks like in their classrooms. Kincaid said the education department will continue to adapt its recommendations as the technology develops.

Human-Centered, Student-Focused Use. AI may support differentiation, feedback, and access, but must not replace human relationships, professional judgment, or essential skill development.

Equity and Civil Rights Protections. AI systems must be monitored for bias and disparate impact. Access to AI supported learning must not widen opportunity gaps. All uses remain subject to federal and state civil rights law.

Data Privacy and Security. AI integration must comply with FERPA, COPPA, PPRA, IDEA, ADA, Section 504, COMAR, and applicable Maryland law. Districts must enforce data minimization, contractual safeguards, and cybersecurity protections.

Academic Integrity and Assessment. Schools must clearly define appropriate AI use, require transparency when AI is permitted, and redesign assessments to emphasize reasoning, process, and authentic demonstration of learning rather than reliance on detection tools.

Professional Learning and Capacity Building. AI implementation depends on educator preparation. Role specific professional learning must equip teachers, leaders, and staff to evaluate AI outputs critically and use tools responsibly.

AI Literacy and Curriculum Integration. Students must develop the knowledge and skills to understand how AI systems function, evaluate bias and limitations, protect privacy, and use AI ethically across disciplines and grade levels.
Operational and Administrative AI Oversight. High-stakes operational systems, including predictive analytics and automated decision-support tools, require documented human review, equity monitoring, and transparent communication.
Procurement and Vendor Governance. Districts must apply structured evaluation criteria, contractual
protections, and ongoing monitoring to ensure that AI tools meet standards for privacy, accessibility,
transparency, and instructional value.

• Use of A.I. in Maryland Universities (May 8, 2026);
• Information Governance Decisions Can Carry a Big Price Tag (Feb. 23, 2022).