Maryland

informal

Summary

Maryland has an MSBA AI & Legal Technology Task Force advisory (May 2025), the first published Maryland appellate opinion directly addressing AI hallucinations (Mezu v. Mezu, 267 Md. App. 354, November 2025, referring an attorney to the Attorney Grievance Commission), and a proposed amendment to Maryland Rule 1-311 that would explicitly codify a duty to verify cited authority. A second unreported decision (Boyd v. Lee, January 2026) followed the same trajectory. Maryland also enacted an AI Evidence Clinic Pilot Program effective January 2026.

Applicable ABA Model Rules

Rule 19-301.1
Rule 19-301.5
Rule 19-301.6
Rule 19-303.1
Rule 19-305.1
Rule 19-305.3

Carrier Implications

A referral to the Attorney Grievance Commission is a reportable event under most professional liability policies. Mezu establishes a clear negligence benchmark for malpractice carriers evaluating AI-related claims. Maryland does not require malpractice insurance.

This summary is informational only. Verify the primary source before relying on this entry. Bar rules differ meaningfully by state. Consult a licensed attorney in your state.

Maryland has no formal numbered ethics opinion on AI but produced binding appellate authority in Mezu v. Mezu (267 Md. App. 354, November 3, 2025). The Appellate Court of Maryland held that “using AI in legal practice is not inherently improper” but “failing to verify AI-generated content is unquestionably improper,” and referred the attorney to the Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission. A second decision (Boyd v. Lee, January 14, 2026, unreported) followed two months later with a sua sponte show cause order on similar facts.

The MSBA AI & Legal Technology Task Force published a May 2025 advisory (“An Overview of Ethical Considerations for Attorney Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Technologies”) and four paid policy templates. A proposed amendment to Maryland Rule 1-311 considered at the March 20, 2026 Standing Committee meeting would codify that an attorney’s signature certifies confirmation of “the existence and authenticity of each legal authority cited.”

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Maryland firm: Two appellate-level AI hallucination cases in three months, both resulting in Commission referrals or show cause orders. Mezu establishes that “failing to verify AI-generated content is unquestionably improper” as binding precedent. The MSBA offers four paid policy templates.

Last verified: April 24, 2026