Maryland: No Sanctions for Apparent Hallucinations

Counsel in Benjamin v. State, 2026 WL 2491126 (Appl. Ct. Md. Aug. 25, 2026), was not sanctioned and was not referred to Bar Counsel, despite having cited apparently hallucinated authorities.  The Court wrote:

Before addressing the merits of the issue raised on appeal, we discuss one issue of concern. Appellant’s brief, which was filed on July 15, 2025, contained multiple inaccurate case citations. 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.

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….

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.” ….

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].

In assessing sanctions, some courts have looked at two factors—verification and candor.  Cite Checking to Find Hallucinated Cases Deemed Insufficient – Part II – Verification and Candor Are Expected (Aug. 17, 2026).

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