Benjamin v. State of Maryland
Appellate Court of Maryland · Md. App. Ct. · Maryland bar guidance
Conduct
Appellant's brief in a criminal appeal contained multiple inaccurate case citations; the court said AI use seemed likely, though counsel had not admitted it.
Consequence
Here the court declined to refer counsel to the Attorney Grievance Commission and urged counsel to use AI responsibly and check all citations.
Lesson
Here the court weighed timing (brief filed before Mezu), the absence of invented cases, and prompt correction attempts against a referral.
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Benjamin v. State, No. 2189, Sept. Term, 2024 (Md. App. Ct. Aug. 25, 2026) (unreported) (Graeff, J.)
- Decided
- August 25, 2026
Summary
Nicholas Adrian Benjamin entered a conditional guilty plea to first-degree assault in the Circuit Court for Frederick County and appealed the denial of his motion to suppress a gun and cannabis found in a Hagerstown apartment, arguing that the warrant was void because a Frederick County circuit judge signed it for a Washington County property. Before reaching the merits, the court addressed "one issue of concern": appellant's brief, filed July 15, 2025, "contained multiple inaccurate case citations." Appellant filed a notice of errata on September 3, 2025, which the court treated as a motion to correct the brief and denied; a September 10, 2025 motion to strike the brief and file a corrected one was denied, the court noting that it was filed three days before the State's brief was due. The court then turned to Mezu v. Mezu, 267 Md. App. 354 (2025), decided October 29, 2025, in which it had referred an attorney to the Attorney Grievance Commission over a brief citing cases that did not exist. Here, the court wrote, "counsel for appellant has not admitted that the mistakes in the brief were due to the use of AI, but that seems likely." The opinion does not name appellant's counsel or list the inaccurate citations.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the court wrote that counsel "has not admitted that the mistakes in the brief were due to the use of AI, but that seems likely"; no tool named)
- Amount or terms:
- None; the court declined to refer counsel to the Attorney Grievance Commission and urged counsel to use AI responsibly and check all citations
What did the court warn about?
In an unreported opinion by Judge Graeff, the court affirmed the judgment, holding that the circuit court properly found appellant lacked standing to challenge the search and, separately, that the issuing judge had authority to issue the warrant. On the brief, the court declined to make a referral, reasoning that "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." It concluded: "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." No sanction, fee award, or referral was imposed, and the brief was not struck. The court reiterated its statement from Mezu that "[t]he failure to use AI responsibly in legal research raises ethical issues and can result in sanctions when used improperly."
Why does Benjamin v. State of Maryland matter for law firms using AI?
The AI discussion is a short Preliminary Statement in an unreported opinion affirming the denial of a suppression motion, but it shows how the Appellate Court of Maryland is calibrating its response after Mezu v. Mezu, its October 2025 decision referring an attorney to the Attorney Grievance Commission over a brief with nonexistent cases. Judge Graeff’s opinion reiterates Mezu’s statement that “[i]t is unquestionably improper for an attorney to submit a brief with fake cases generated by AI,” and then explains why this brief did not warrant the same response.
The court listed four reasons: the brief was filed before 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 did not claim harm. The court’s AI attribution is hedged: counsel had not admitted AI use, and the court said only that it “seems likely.” The court did not list the citations, name the lawyer, or impose any sanction. Its disposition is a warning, framed as a renewed urging to “use AI responsibly and check the accuracy of all citations before submitting a brief to this Court, or any other court.”
Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that in this case the court treated early self-correction as meaningful even though its own procedural rulings had denied the errata and the corrected brief, and that the court expressly listed the brief’s pre-Mezu filing date among its reasons for not making a referral.
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.
- Document correction attempts when a citation problem is found after filing. Here the court credited counsel's errata notice and motion to file a corrected brief, both made before the State's brief was due, even though it denied both.
- Review briefs filed before a court's published AI-citation decision against that decision now. The court here treated the fact that the brief predated Mezu v. Mezu as a reason not to refer counsel.
- Verify every citation in an appellate brief. The court here drew a line between inaccurate citations to real cases and cases that are entirely made up, and treated the absence of the latter as a mitigating factor.
Sources
Primary sources
- That AI produced the inaccurate citations: the court said only that AI use 'seems likely'; counsel had not admitted it, and no tool is named.