Maryland Cracks Down on Fake Legal Citations as AI Use Rises
Maryland's highest court committee voted unanimously Friday to require lawyers to certify that they've verified every case citation in their filings, targeting the growing problem of AI-generated fake legal authorities.
The Maryland Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure approved language making explicit what was previously implicit: willful use of fake citations can trigger sanctions. The state Supreme Court must adopt the change for it to take effect.
Under the proposed rule, an opposing party could file a motion for monetary sanctions to cover the cost of responding to filings with fake citations filed in bad faith. The rule would not apply to self-represented litigants.
The Problem Gets Specific
The rule emerged after Maryland's Appellate Court referred a Bel Air lawyer to the state's Attorney Grievance Commission in October for filing a motion "replete with citation irregularities." That case marked the first time either of Maryland's appellate courts had addressed improper AI use by attorneys.
Lawyer Adam Hyman had asked a law school graduate working as his clerk to use ChatGPT to write a brief in a divorce case. When asked if the clerk verified each citation, Hyman said he did not verify them himself. He acknowledged that he typically does not read the cases he cites.
Appellate Judge Kathryn Graeff wrote that Hyman likely violated rules requiring competent representation and mandating that lawyers "bring or defend only meritorious issues." The court denied his request to amend the brief with real legal authorities.
In another case, a federal judge in Alabama last year reprimanded two lawyers from Butler Snow for citing fake cases in an AI-generated filing. Those same lawyers had represented Maryland in a lawsuit over jail conditions in Baltimore. One withdrew from the Maryland case; the other remains listed as counsel.
What the Rule Actually Says
Appellate Judge Douglas Nazarian, who serves as vice chair of the rules committee, said the rule sets a "relatively low bar - does this case even exist?"
"It's never been okay for people to just lie in a paper or a pleading about what the facts are, about what the law is," Nazarian said during the meeting. "The whole point of lawyers is to fight about what a case means."
The rule targets willful misuse. Negligent mistakes or honest errors would not automatically trigger sanctions under the language the committee approved.
What Lawyers Need to Know
The Maryland State Bar Association issued guidance in May 2025 that remains the clearest statement of obligations. Attorneys must:
- Provide competent representation
- Verify citations themselves rather than relying solely on AI output
- Disclose to clients when generative AI tools are used
- Charge reasonable fees
- Maintain client confidentiality
The bar emphasized that human fact-checking is non-negotiable. AI tools like ChatGPT can generate plausible-sounding case names and citations that do not exist.
For legal professionals working with AI, proper training and verification protocols are essential. Consider exploring AI for Legal Professionals or the AI Learning Path for Paralegals to understand both the capabilities and limitations of these tools.
What Happens Next
The Maryland Supreme Court will review the committee's recommendation. If adopted, the rule would clarify attorney liability and create a mechanism for opposing parties to seek compensation for the extra work fake citations cause.
The change does not create new obligations - it makes existing ones explicit. Lawyers have always been required to provide competent representation and cite actual cases. The rule simply removes ambiguity about what happens when they don't.
Your membership also unlocks:
