Hallucinations Are “Old News,” But a Recent Maryland Decision Addresses Ethical Contours 

A hallucinated citation issue was addressed in Boyd v. Lee, 2026 WL 111263 (Appl. Ct. Md. Jan. 14, 2026)(unreported).

Hallucinated case citations are “old news.”  To paraphrase, “[I]t is no longer amateur hour.” (Feb. 12, 2021)(citation omitted).

Maryland has not been immune.  Maryland Fake Citation Case – Court Issues a Warning – Referral to Atty. Grievance Comm’n. (Nov. 2, 2025)(Court wrote that: “Implicit in the requirement that an attorney certify that there is good ground to support the contentions raised is that the attorney has read the primary cases on which the attorney relies for the argument submitted.”).

In Boyd, Mr. Boyd appealed from dismissal of his Complaint and denial of subsequent motions.  The Appellate Court of Maryland dismissed his appeal.

Mr. Boyd’s Complaint for divorce on the grounds of cruelty was denied after a trial in which he appeared pro se.  He was represented by counsel on appeal.  His appellate counsel filed a brief and purported “record extract.”  The latter was deemed inadequate.  There were also other procedural deficiencies—insufficient copies were filed—and the Court issued a show cause order to which there was no response.

The next event was a sua sponte order stating: “On December 2, 2025, we ordered Mr. Troy to show cause, in writing, why he should not be sanctioned and why he should not be referred to the Attorney Grievance Commission for citing to ‘hallucinated’ and unsubstantiated case law in Mr. Boyd’s brief.”  Id. at *2 (emphasis added).  The Court cited six irregularities and later added two more to that list.

The appeal was dismissed for failure to respond to the order to file sufficient paper copies and otherwise respond to the show cause orders. Id. at *2.  The Court added:

We briefly address the evident artificial intelligence issue that, while not dispositive here, warrants comment. 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).

Id. at *2 (emphasis added).

It is noteworthy that the Court relied on the certification requirement. The blog Does Maryland Have an Analog to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(g)? (Dec. 23, 2022) discusses the Hon. Paul W. Grimm’s (ret.) article suggesting that Md. Rule 1-311, “when read in tandem with Rule 1-341, functions similarly to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g),” in some respects, but requires a higher standard in others.

In Boyd, the Appellate Court also, in the alternative, reached the merits. Id. at *3.  It then concluded: “Despite being given multiple opportunities, Mr. Troy failed to file with this Court eight paper copies of Mr. Boyd’s brief and a record extract. See Md. Rules 20-404(b) and 20-406(a)(2). We, accordingly, exercise our discretion pursuant to Maryland Rule 8-602(c)(5) and dismiss the instant appeal.”

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 Maryland Rule 1-104(a)(2)(B).”

For reviews of recent books on Artificial Intelligence, see Book Review: Craig Ball, “The Leery Lawyer’s Guide to AI and LLMs in Trial Practice” (Jan. 16, 2026); Book Review: John Tredennick and William Webber, “Generative AI for Smart Discovery Professionals” (Jan. 15, 2026); Book Review: Jim Sullivan, “The Book on AI Doc Review” (Jan. 13, 2026); Book Review: Tom O’Connor, “Artificial Intelligence for the Rest of Us” (Jan. 12, 2026).

For additional information on A.I., click on the “TAG” named “Artificial Intelligence” in the drop down menu at the top of this blog. For example a recent blog discusses Artificial Intelligence in Maryland Courts (Aug. 24, 2025).

UPDATE: See Pamela Langham, U.S. District Court of Maryland Addresses Hallucinated Cases | Maryland State Bar Association (Jan. 7, 2026). In Lafferty v. Theiss, No. 1:2024cv02642 – Document 29 (D. Md. 2025), Ms. Langham wrote that: “Plaintiff’s counsel further represented that both counsel and the firm had taken concrete steps to prevent overreliance on AI in future pleadings. To avoid recurrence of the errors, the firm instituted several protocols. First, every quotation or parenthetical citation must now be substantiated by a PDF copy of the underlying judicial opinion, which is to be downloaded and thoroughly reviewed by the attorney responsible for the pleading. Additional measures include requiring each checker to independently verify all citations and quotations prior to filing, confirming the accuracy of citations through Shepardizing or KeyCite, retaining the verified authorities for potential court review, and mandating a secondary audit of all filings by another member of the firm to ensure citation accuracy.”

Ms. Langham reported that, in Neal et. al v. Frayer et. al., No. 8:2024cv00778 – Document 31 (D. Md. 2025): “The court noted that plaintiff’s counsel had faced similar errors in a separate case, Lafferty v. Theiss. Despite the mistakes and errors in plaintiff’s counsel’s response in the Neal case, the court decided not to issue a show cause order or impose sanctions, citing counsel’s prior assurances in the Lafferty case that corrective measures had been implemented at his firm to prevent future errors.”