Consultation, not in forceSecondarySupreme Court of Maryland Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and ProcedureLast checked 31 October 2026
Jurisdiction
Maryland: AI rules for lawyers
Maryland, United States · Switch state
- United States federal courts
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- District of Columbia
- Florida
- Georgia
- Hawaii
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
What this means for lawyers
Read and verify every authority you cite. The Appellate Court of Maryland held that signing under Rule 1-311(b) implies the lawyer has read the cited cases, and referred a lawyer to the Attorney Grievance Commission over AI-generated fake citations.
A proposed amendment would put the duty in the text: Rule 1-311(b) would say the signing attorney "confirmed the existence and authenticity of each legal authority cited". It is a proposal only; comments close 19 November 2026 and no adopting Rules Order was found.
In the federal District of Maryland, Standing Order 2026-03 (dated 5 August 2026) warns that unverified AI filings risk Rule 11 sanctions and referral to the Court's Disciplinary and Admissions Committee.
No Maryland ethics opinion specific to generative AI was found; the Maryland State Bar Association points lawyers to ABA Formal Opinion 512.
As at .
Telling the court and the client
- Tell the courtUnclear
Court disclosure: no rule found. Neither Standing Order 2026-03 nor the proposed state rule changes require disclosure of AI use; they require verification. Client disclosure/consent: no rule found. The proposed Rule 19-301.6 comment addresses confidentiality precautions when using AI tools but sets no disclosure or consent requirement.
- Tell the clientUnclear
Same basis and sources as above.
What changed in Maryland in the last 12 months
AI instruments
Courts and tribunals
5 August 2026; start date not confirmedProfessional guidanceUnited States District Court for the District of MarylandLast checked 31 October 2026
29 October 2025; start date not confirmedProfessional guidanceAppellate Court of MarylandLast checked 31 October 2026
State bar and regulators
Professional guidanceMaryland State Bar Association (AI and Legal Technology Task Force)Date not statedLast checked 31 October 2026
Sources
- Supreme Court of Maryland Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure: 229th Report: proposed AI and technology amendments to Rules 1-311, 19-301.1, 19-301.6, 19-303.3 and 19-305.3 (proposal, not yet adopted) · last checked
- United States District Court for the District of Maryland: Standing Order 2026-03: In re Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings · last checked
- Appellate Court of Maryland: Mezu v. Mezu, 267 Md. App. 354 (2025), No. 361, September Term, 2025 (reported opinion): citations to fictitious cases generated by AI · last checked
- Maryland State Bar Association (AI and Legal Technology Task Force): AI Insights & Resources Hub: AI Ethical Considerations (Overview of Ethical Considerations for Attorney Use of Generative AI Technologies) · last checked
- Standing Committee on Rules · last checked
- Maryland Courts · last checked
Court AI rule changes + new tools, monthly
One email a month when a court changes its AI practice note or a tool is added to the catalogue. Your address is kept for that note. See Privacy.
Before the work starts
- Define the matter
Confirm the client’s instructions, jurisdiction, intended output and the information available before dividing the work.
- Confirm the source material
Check the work against the original records and identify omissions, contradictions and remaining information.
- Record review and approval
Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.
- Jurisdiction
Apply this guidance to the actual matter and jurisdiction. Confirm current requirements before relying on an example.
Limits on AI assistance
- Confirm firm, client and applicable court or professional restrictions before using any AI feature.