Proposed Changes to the MD Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct Re: AI

Use of A.I. is the express focus of proposed changes to the Maryland Rules.  Proposed Comment [3] to Rule 19-303.3 and Proposed Comment [7] to Rule 19-301.1 expressly mention AI.  The latter refers back to Rule 19-305.3.

This post is based on the Minutes of the June 25, 2026, Open Meeting of the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure.  The proposals have been approved by the Rules Committee but not yet sent to the Supreme Court.

Additionally, an anti-hallucination amendment to Rule 1-311 remains pending.  Maryland’s Proposed Anti-Hallucination Rule (Mar. 16, 2026). A proposal to amend the computer generated evidence rule, Rule 2-504.3, has been made. Suggested A.I. Rule – Suggested Amendment to Maryland’s Computer-Generated Evidence Rule (Apr. 2, 2026).

RULE 19-303.3

The text of Rule 19-303.3, the analog to Model Rule 3.3, remains unchanged. It requires candor toward the tribunal.  Proposed Comment [3] states:

Representations by an Attorney–[3] Attorneys have a duty to review analyses and citations to authority and correct errors, including misstatements of law and misleading arguments, before submitting materials to a court. An attorney’s duty of candor towards the tribunal includes the obligation to take reasonable measures to verify the accuracy and existence of cited authorities, including ensuring that the cited authority is not fabricated, misstated, or taken out of context, before submission to a tribunal, including any cited authorities generated or assisted by artificial intelligence or other technological tools.

The Reporter’s Note refers to ABA Formal Opinion 512 and adds: “A large concern with attorneys using AI is the possibility of fabricated case citations and authorities if the materials are not appropriately reviewed. To address this issue, a proposed amendment to Rule 19-303.3 (3.3) adds new Comment [3] to expressly highlight that an attorney is responsible for verifying citations and authorities used in materials filed with the court….  The first sentence of the new Comment is derived from ABA Formal Opinion 512. The remainder of proposed Comment [3] mirrors the language proposed to be added as a Comment to California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.3.”

RULE 19-301.1

The text of Rule 19-301.1, the analog to Model Rule 1.1, remains unchanged. It requires competent representation.  However, the Comment now refers expressly to A.I.:

A modification to Comment [6], and an entirely new Comment [7] are proposed:

Maintaining competence–[6] To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, an attorney should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, engage in continuing study and education and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the attorney is subject.

[7] When using, directing the use of, or relying on technology, including artificial intelligence, a lawyer must independently review, verify, and exercise professional judgment regarding any output generated by the technology that is used in connection with representing a client. See Rule 19-305.3 (5.3).

The Reporter’s Note states:

The American Bar Association (“ABA”) recently addressed the ethical implications of attorneys’ use of generative artificial intelligence (“GAI”) tools in Formal Opinion 512. The Opinion “identifies some ethical issues involving the use of GAI tools and offers general guidance for lawyers attempting to navigate this emerging landscape,”….

The Note continues, stating that one of the subcommittees “determined that additions to the Comments of several Title 19 Rules would assist attorneys navigating new technology, particularly AI, in legal practice. Accordingly, amendments are proposed to Rules 19-301.1 (1.1), 19-301.6 (1.6), and 19-303.3 (3.3).”

Adding language requiring lawyers to maintain knowledge of the benefits and risks associated with technology would reiterate the need for attorneys to be aware of developments in the use of AI, but may appear to place an ethical burden on attorneys whose practice does not require extensive knowledge of technology. Overall, in light of the rising use of AI and the increased ethical risks associated with similar technology, the Subcommittee recommends adding language to Comment [6] of Rule 19-301.1 mirroring the addition in the Model Rule.

Comment [7] is a modification of a California proposal.

Proposed Comment [7] sets forth an attorney’s obligation to independently review and verify output generated when using, directing the use of, or relying on technology. A reference to Rule 19-305.3 (5.3) at the end of the Comment serves as a reminder of an attorney’s obligation to supervise when using non-attorney assistance.

RULE 19-305.3

A proposed change to title of Maryland Rule 19-305.3, an analog to Model Rule 5.3, provides: “RESPONSIBILITIES REGARDING NON-ATTORNEY ASSISTANTS ASSISTANCE.” Underlined material is added.

The Reporter’s Note suggests that: “To reflect the increasingly important role of automated nonlawyer assistance, such as ‘cloud computing’ services, the title of the Rule will change from ‘Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants’ to ‘Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistance.’” [citation omitted]. The Note adds: “While the Rule concerns the supervision of persons, the change reflects that non-attorneys may also use technological services while assisting attorneys.”

The Comment of the Rules Committee is:

[1] Section (a) of this Rule requires attorneys with managerial authority within a law firm to make reasonable efforts to establish internal policies and procedures designed to provide ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that non-attorneys in the firm will and non-attorneys outside the firm who work on firm matters act in a way compatible with the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct professional obligations of the attorney. See Comment [1] to Rule 19-305.1 (5.1). Section (b) of this Rule applies to attorneys who have supervisory authority over the work of a non-attorney such non-attorneys within or outside the firm. Section (c) of this Rule specifies the circumstances in which an attorney is responsible for the conduct of a non-attorney such non-attorneys within or outside the firm that would be a violation of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct if engaged in by an attorney.

….

[4] An attorney may use non-attorneys outside the firm to assist the attorney in rendering legal services to the client. Examples include the retention of an investigative or paraprofessional service, hiring a document management company to create and maintain a database for complex litigation, sending client documents to a third party for printing or scanning, and using an Internet-based service to store client information. When using such services outside the firm, an attorney must make reasonable efforts to ensure that the services are provided in a manner that is compatible with the attorney’s professional obligations. The extent of this obligation will depend upon the circumstances, including the education, experience and reputation of the non-attorney; the nature of the services involved; the terms of any arrangements concerning the protection of client information; and the legal and ethical environments of the jurisdictions in which the services will be performed, particularly with regard to confidentiality. See also Rules 19-301.1, 19-301.2, 19-301.4, 19-301.6, 19-305.4 (a), and 19-305.5 (a). When retaining or directing a non-attorney outside the firm, an attorney should communicate directions appropriate under the circumstances to give reasonable assurance that the non-attorney’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the attorney. [5] Where the client directs the selection of a particular non-attorney service provider outside the firm, the attorney ordinarily should agree with the client concerning the allocation of responsibility for monitoring as between the client and the attorney. See Rule 19-301.2. When making such an allocation in a matter pending before a tribunal, attorneys and parties may have additional obligations that are a matter of law beyond the scope of these Rules.