Maryland: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Maryland firm: No formal numbered ethics opinion governs AI use in Maryland, but the MSBA AI & Legal Technology Task Force May 2025 advisory sets the operative standard of care, and Mezu v. Mezu (267 Md. App. 354, November 2025) is binding appellate precedent that “failing to verify AI-generated content is unquestionably improper.” Two appellate AI-hallucination cases in three months, both producing Attorney Grievance Commission referrals or show cause orders, mean a firm that cannot show citation verification on every filing is exposed today, before any rule amendment is adopted.

Start with: a written AI use policy (the MSBA template set is the structural baseline), a citation verification log for every court filing, and staff training records covering AI policy and verification.

MSBA AI & Legal Technology Task Force, “An Overview of Ethical Considerations for Attorney Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Technologies”

Citation: MSBA AI & Legal Technology Task Force, An Overview of Ethical Considerations for Attorney Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Technologies, May 2025 (MSBA Product Code E-6030-25). MSBA store listing.

Status: Practice advisory issued by the Maryland State Bar Association AI & Legal Technology Task Force. Non-binding. Not a formal numbered ethics opinion. The MSBA store listing is members-only (the live URL redirects to the MSBA login page). Title, authorship by the MSBA Artificial Intelligence Task Force, and product description were verified against an archived snapshot of the MSBA store page.

What it requires (mandatory language)

• Attorneys must review all AI output to ensure it is accurate, reliable, and trustworthy, and that legal arguments are relevant to the particular legal issue at hand.
• Confidential client information must not be entered into unsecured public AI tools, given the risk of inadvertent waiver of attorney-client privilege.
• Where a specific AI charge is passed to the client, it must appear in the engagement letter and be explained fully, preferably in writing.
• AI may assist but must never replace an attorney’s independent professional judgment.

What it recommends (“should” language)

• Enterprise or business versions of AI tools that do not train on user data are preferable to public consumer versions.
• Attorneys may need to disclose AI tool use depending on the nature and extent of the role AI plays in the representation.
• Under MARPC Rule 19-301.5, if AI substantially reduces time and labor, the reasonableness standard requires reconsideration of the fee charged.

Rules cited: MARPC 19-301.1 (Competence), 19-301.5 (Fees), 19-301.6 (Confidentiality), 19-305.1 (Supervisory Lawyers), 19-305.3 (Non-Attorney Assistants).

MSBA AI policy templates

The MSBA also publishes four specialized policy templates for internal firm use: Templates for a Law Firm Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (MSBA Product Code E-6208-25). Store listing. The Task Force calls a written firm policy the most effective way to address the ethical and professional challenges that AI poses in legal practice. Firms should treat that policy as a baseline document, not a one-time deliverable.

What federal courts in Maryland require for AI use in filings

The research note documents no district-wide AI standing order in the District of Maryland. Firms should review the assigned judge’s standing orders at the opening of each federal matter; the operative federal default is Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

What Maryland state courts require for AI use in filings

Maryland Rule 1-311(b) governs attorney signature and certification on filings. The Mezu v. Mezu opinion grounded its AI-verification holding in Rule 1-311(b) together with MARPC Rule 19-303.1 (meritorious claims). A proposed amendment to Rule 1-311 (see Pending activity, below) would make the citation-verification duty explicit.

Has anyone been sanctioned for AI use in Maryland?

Mezu v. Mezu (Appellate Court of Maryland, November 2025)

Citation: Chukwuemeka Mezu v. Kristen Mezu, No. 361 Sept. Term 2025; 267 Md. App. 354 (decided November 3, 2025), Judge Graeff. Primary source PDF. MSBA announcement.

First published Maryland appellate opinion directly addressing AI hallucinations in court filings, and binding precedent in Maryland. The court drew a sharp line in its holding. Using AI in legal practice, the court said, is “not inherently improper.” Failing to verify AI-generated content, however, was found “unquestionably improper.” The attorney’s brief contained fictitious cases, misquoted passages, and citations generated via ChatGPT, VLex, CourtListener, CaseMine, and Justia, none independently verified. The attorney was referred to the Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission. Significance: a Commission referral is reportable under most professional liability policies. Mezu establishes the negligence benchmark Maryland carriers will measure AI-related claims against.

Boyd v. Lee (Appellate Court of Maryland, January 2026)

Citation: Boyd v. Lee, 2026 WL 111263 (Appl. Ct. Md. Jan. 14, 2026) (unreported). On December 2, 2025 the court issued a sua sponte show cause order. Counsel had to show cause why he should not be sanctioned and referred to the Attorney Grievance Commission for citing “hallucinated” and unsubstantiated case law. The opinion stated:

It is “unacceptable for counsel (or unrepresented parties, for that matter) to submit or attempt to rely on statements or authorities that are fabricated, hallucinated, or unsubstantiated, whether they are generated by artificial intelligence tools or ‘real’ ones.”

The appeal was dismissed for failure to respond to procedural orders. Unreported and not binding precedent, but the second Maryland appellate AI-hallucination decision in two months.

Hyman oral argument incident (October 2025)

In an unnamed divorce appeal at October 3, 2025 oral argument, judges identified that 11 of 27 cases cited in the appellant’s brief had citation irregularities. Counsel stated he was unaware his office used AI but accepted responsibility, completed CLE, and implemented a firm AI policy. Illustrates that supervising attorneys are responsible for staff AI use even without direct knowledge under MARPC Rule 19-305.3.

What AI-related rules are pending in Maryland?

Proposed amendment to Maryland Rule 1-311. The Maryland Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure considered the amendment at its March 20, 2026 meeting. It is not yet adopted as of April 2026 and would require Supreme Court of Maryland approval to take effect. The proposed addition would treat an attorney’s signature as “a certification that the attorney has read the pleading or paper and has confirmed the existence and authenticity of each legal authority cited.” Per the Reporter’s Note, the change makes “explicit what already is implicit in the Rule.” Source: eDiscovery LLC summary.

Maryland AI Evidence Clinic Pilot Program. Md. Code Ann., Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article § 13-101.2; effective January 15, 2026. The program funds AI expertise for circuit courts and District Court. Experts testify on the authenticity of electronic evidence potentially created or altered using AI. Civil cases where parties lack access to expert testimony are prioritized. Maryland courts now have institutional infrastructure for evaluating AI evidence authenticity.

Preventing Algorithmic Discrimination Act (HB 1331/SB 936). Pending as of April 2026. Deployment deadline if enacted: January 1, 2027. Could apply to law firms using AI in client-intake screening or other automated decision-making affecting consumers.

How do malpractice carriers in Maryland treat AI use?

Maryland does not require malpractice insurance. The research note identifies no Maryland-specific carrier publication on AI underwriting. Mezu’s “unquestionably improper” framing of unverified AI citations sets the practical negligence benchmark a carrier or defense counsel will reference. A referral to the Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission is a reportable event under most professional liability policies. The MSBA’s emphasis on written engagement letter disclosure of AI fees and written firm AI policies maps directly to the documentation a firm should bring into its renewal questionnaire.

What does my Maryland malpractice carrier ask about AI at renewal?

No Maryland carrier has published AI-specific application items in materials reviewed for this entry. The substantive standard a broker or carrier will reference is the MSBA May 2025 Task Force advisory, Mezu v. Mezu as the negligence benchmark, and (if adopted during the renewal cycle) the amended Rule 1-311 certification standard. Plan on producing: a written AI use policy built on the MSBA template structure, a citation verification log for court filings, vendor diligence records, and an incident response procedure for discovered AI-hallucinated citations. Confirm application items directly with your broker.

What documentation should a Maryland firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy using the MSBA templates (Product Code E-6208-25) as the structural baseline. The Task Force describes a written policy as the most effective way to address the ethical and professional challenges that AI poses in legal practice. Treat the policy as a baseline, not a one-time deliverable.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification log or checklist for every court filing. Mezu v. Mezu makes unverified AI citations “unquestionably improper” under Rule 1-311(b) and MARPC 19-303.1; the proposed Rule 1-311 amendment would codify the same duty.
3. (Owner: firm administrator) Staff AI training records for all attorneys and staff who may use AI tools, covering firm policy and citation verification. Addresses supervising-attorney liability under MARPC 19-305.1 and 19-305.3, which the Hyman incident illustrates.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) AI tool vendor assessment for each tool: model training on user data, data processing agreement, and data location. Maps to MARPC 19-301.6 confidentiality obligations and the Task Force’s preference for enterprise versions over public consumer products.
2. (Owner: managing partner) Supervision protocol covering associate and staff AI use under MARPC 19-305.1 and 19-305.3.
3. (Owner: managing partner + billing partner) Engagement letter clause addressing AI tool use, fee implications under MARPC 19-301.5, and written explanation of any AI-specific charge.

Months four to six (per-matter discipline)

These are recurring practices, not one-time projects: each new matter exercises them.

1. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Per-matter AI use notes capturing which tools were used and what was verified, so the firm can reconstruct verification on any filing.
2. (Owner: managing partner) Incident response procedure for any filing discovered to contain AI-hallucinated citations: notice to the court, notice to the client, carrier reportability assessment, and Attorney Grievance Commission self-report assessment.

We are building practitioner resources for firms working through this list. The monthly update covers new resources as they ship.