When Lawyers Rely on AI Without Checking It: Real Consequences
Published .
The general concept
Lawyers may use AI tools to brainstorm, summarize records, draft, or assist with research. The risk becomes serious when a lawyer files AI-generated material without checking it—especially nonexistent cases, quotations that do not appear in the cited opinion, or real cases described as saying something they do not. A lawyer who signs and submits a court paper remains responsible for its accuracy; delegating research to a staff member or blaming the software does not transfer that responsibility. Courts may order the lawyer to explain the filing, correct or withdraw it, pay fees or other sanctions, or face a referral to lawyer-discipline authorities. In severe cases, courts have struck filings, denied a request to correct a brief, or dismissed an appeal. A client can also lose time, credibility, money, or a meaningful opportunity to present an argument. These outcomes are not automatic: courts consider the governing rule, seriousness and repetition of the errors, whether the lawyer read and verified the sources, candor after discovery, harm, and corrective steps. Using AI responsibly is not itself misconduct; filing unchecked output is the recurring problem in these cases.
How Maryland applies it
Maryland Rule 1-311(b) treats an attorney’s signature on a court paper as a certification that the attorney has read it and believes there is good ground to support it. Maryland’s professional-conduct rules separately address competence, meritorious claims, candor to a tribunal, and supervision of nonlawyer staff. In Mezu v. Mezu, Maryland’s intermediate appellate court found that a brief contained multiple nonexistent cases and other authorities that did not support the cited propositions. Counsel had relied on a nonlawyer clerk’s AI-assisted research and had not read the cases. The court declined to let the client file a supplemental brief after briefing and argument were complete, and referred counsel to the Attorney Grievance Commission. It imposed no monetary sanction because no party requested one and the court identified no authority to impose one on its own in that case. By contrast, a Maryland federal court later found no additional action warranted after counsel acknowledged the verification failure, apologized, and described corrective protocols, while warning that similar future filings could lead to Rule 11 sanctions. A separate federal appeal involved a Maryland-licensed lawyer who admitted ChatGPT generated seven nonexistent citations and that she had not verified them; the Tenth Circuit ordered her to pay $1,000 toward the opposing party’s fees and referred the matter to Maryland disciplinary authorities. The practical safeguard is simple: personally open and read every cited authority, confirm that it exists and remains valid, and verify that it supports the exact proposition and quotation before filing. If an error is discovered, promptly assess the duty to correct it and be candid with the court and client.
Related Maryland Cases and Authorities
Md. Rule 1-311(b).; Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct 19-301.1, 19-303.1, 19-303.3, and 19-305.3.; Mezu v. Mezu, No. 361, Sept. Term 2025, 2025 WL 3022460 (Md. App. Oct. 29, 2025).; Neal v. Frayer, No. 8:24-cv-00778-BAH, Mem. Op. (D. Md. Nov. 17, 2025).; Amarsingh v. Frontier Airlines, Inc., No. 24-1391 (10th Cir. Feb. 9, 2026).; Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023).