Ajakaiye v. Oladipupo
Appellate Court of Maryland · Md. App. Ct. · Maryland bar guidance
Conduct
Counsel's custody-appeal brief quoted language that does not exist and misstated cases, copied largely from the client's pro se filing; counsel denied using AI.
Consequence
Custody judgment affirmed; the court referred the matter to Maryland's Attorney Grievance Commission. No fine.
Lesson
Blindly copying from filings generated using AI is, the court said, "no less problematic" than using AI improperly in the first instance.
Verified September 28, 2026
- Citation
- Ajakaiye v. Oladipupo, No. 1993, Sept. Term 2025 (Md. App. Ct. June 16, 2026) (unreported) (Lazerow, J.)
- Decided
- June 16, 2026
Summary
Olutosin Ajakaiye (Father) appealed a Prince George's County custody judgment awarding joint legal custody and giving Omowunmi H. Oladipupo (Mother) tie-breaking authority and primary physical custody. On May 26, 2026, the Appellate Court of Maryland issued an order to show cause listing citation irregularities in Father's opening brief: three cases on page iv that "do not exist as cited"; propositions attributed to North v. North, Taylor v. Taylor, Ross v. Hoffman, In re Yve S., and (on page 28) Boswell v. Boswell that are not found in those cases; quotations attributed to Boswell v. Boswell and Taylor that do not appear in them; and an overstated reading of Montgomery County Department of Social Services v. Sanders. The court was concerned that counsel had used AI; his June 1, 2026 response said he does "not use artificial intelligence in drafting of any of [his briefs]" but conceded he drew from Father's pro se trial memoranda. The court found that for most of the offending citations counsel "simply copied and pasted" from Father's pro se second motion for reconsideration, drafted with help from Father's sister, a non-practicing attorney who attended a foreign law school; counsel conceded he had not confirmed whether AI was used to prepare it.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (counsel denied using AI; the court found he copied citations from the client's pro se filing and said copying from filings "generated using AI--which is likely what happened here" is no less problematic)
- Amount or terms:
- No monetary sanction; matter referred to the Attorney Grievance Commission
How did the court address the AI-related conduct?
In an unreported opinion by Judge Lazerow, the court affirmed the custody judgment and the denial of Father's motions for reconsideration on the merits. In a footnote addressing the show-cause order, it held that "[a]ssuming the truth of everything Father's counsel represents in the Response, the fact remains that counsel, throughout his briefing, used quotations that do not exist and cited caselaw that does not support the stated propositions." Citing its published decision in Mezu v. Mezu, 267 Md. App. 354 (2025), on how AI misuse can implicate the Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional Conduct, the court added that "it is no less problematic for an attorney to blindly copy-and-paste from other filings generated using AI [...] than it is to use AI improperly in the first instance," and stated: "As we did in Mezu, we will refer this matter to the Attorney Grievance Commission." Costs were assessed against the appellant. No fine or fee award was imposed, and the opinion does not name counsel.
Why does Ajakaiye v. Oladipupo matter for law firms using AI?
Ajakaiye v. Oladipupo addresses a gap that a no-AI policy does not close: an attorney who says he does not use AI but, in the court’s view, likely imported AI output from another filing. Counsel’s show-cause response, as the court describes it, stated that he does “not use artificial intelligence in drafting of any of [his briefs].” The court took that at face value and found it beside the point: “Assuming the truth of everything Father’s counsel represents in the Response, the fact remains that counsel, throughout his briefing, used quotations that do not exist and cited caselaw that does not support the stated propositions.” Its own review showed that most of the defective citations were “simply copied and pasted” from the client’s pro se second motion for reconsideration, prepared with help from the client’s sister, and counsel conceded he had not checked whether AI was used to prepare that motion.
The court declined to “belabor the point” because it had recently addressed AI misuse in its published Mezu v. Mezu decision, but it wrote to add one proposition: “it is no less problematic for an attorney to blindly copy-and-paste from other filings generated using AI—which is likely what happened here—than it is to use AI improperly in the first instance.” It then followed Mezu’s remedy and referred the matter to the Attorney Grievance Commission. The discussion appears in a footnote to an opinion that otherwise affirms the custody judgment on the merits.
The practical lesson concerns intake of work product. Client-drafted filings, prior pro se papers, and research from non-lawyers may contain AI-generated authority, and here the court held counsel to account for the quotations and citations he carried forward from such a filing. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider whether their verification procedures treat inherited citations the same way as citations the firm generated.
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- Verify citations and quotations inherited from client drafts, pro se filings, or prior pleadings before reusing them. The court held that copying from filings generated using AI is 'no less problematic' than using AI improperly directly.
- Document the provenance of any research supplied by a client or a non-practicing relative. Counsel's reliance on the fact that a non-practicing, foreign-trained attorney helped draft the pro se motion did not avoid the referral.
- Review show-cause responses for whether they address the defect, not only the tool. Counsel's statement that he does not use AI did not answer the court's finding that the quotations did not exist.
Sources
Primary sources
- Whether AI generated the citations is not established. Counsel denied using AI; the court's statement is that copying from filings generated using AI is 'likely what happened here.' The May 26, 2026 show-cause order and counsel's June 1, 2026 response were not retrieved; their contents are taken from the opinion's description.