--- title: "Maryland: AI rules for lawyers" url: "https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/maryland" type: "jurisdiction" site: "AI Law Framework" id: "US-MD" kind: "state" country: "US" parent: "United States" last_checked: "2026-10-31" as_of: "2026-10-31" last_reviewed: "2026-11-03" --- # Maryland: AI rules for lawyers > Maryland: court and regulator AI instruments and the tasks that change here. Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/maryland Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt ## 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 31 October 2026. ## Telling the court and the client **Tell the court:** Unclear 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. - [Notice of Proposed Rules Changes, 229th Report](https://www.mdcourts.gov/sites/default/files/rules/reports/229threport.pdf) - [Standing Order 2026-03](https://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/sites/mdd/files/2026-03.pdf) **Tell the client:** Unclear Same basis and sources as above. ## Last checked Last checked 31 October 2026. ## What changed in Maryland in the last 12 months - 5 August 2026 · Dated: [Standing Order 2026-03: In re Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings](#ai-rule-jr-us-md-dmd-standing-order-2026-03) ## AI instruments ### Courts and tribunals #### 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) - Type: Consultation, not in force · Consultation - Issuer: Supreme Court of Maryland Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure - Date on page: 20 October 2026 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: Consultation, not in force - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.mdcourts.gov/sites/default/files/rules/reports/229threport.pdf The Rules Committee proposes making explicit that an attorney's signature on a pleading or paper under Rule 1-311(b) confirms the existence and authenticity of each legal authority cited. It also proposes new comments to the professional conduct rules: an attorney using or relying on technology including AI must independently review, verify and exercise judgment over its output (Rule 19-301.1 cmt [7]), a technology-risk addition to Rule 19-301.1 cmt [6], AI tools added to the examples of technology through which client information is transmitted and must be protected (Rule 19-301.6 cmt [20]), a verification-of-authority reminder in Rule 19-303.3 (new cmt [3]), and changes to Rule 19-305.3 (retitled to non-attorney 'assistance', new comment on non-attorney services outside the firm, addressing vendors' use of technology including AI). The Committee did not recommend adding monetary sanctions to Rule 1-311, noting Rule 1-341 already allows them. These are proposals open for comment and have no force until adopted by the Supreme Court. Key points: - Proposed Rule 1-311(b): attorney has confirmed the existence and authenticity of each legal authority cited. - Proposed Rule 19-301.1 comment [7]: independently review and verify output of technology including AI. - Proposed Rule 19-303.3 comment [3]: verify accuracy and existence of cited authorities before submission. - Comment period ends 19 November 2026; adoption by Rules Order still required. #### Standing Order 2026-03: In re Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings - Type: Court rule or order · Standing order - Issuer: United States District Court for the District of Maryland - Date on page: 5 August 2026 - Effective date: 5 August 2026 - Status: 5 August 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/sites/mdd/files/2026-03.pdf The Chief Judge of the federal District Court for Maryland cautions that attorneys and unrepresented litigants must verify the accuracy of all filings before submission, especially when relying on generative AI. Filings with fake or hallucinated citations, quotations or representations may attract Rule 11 sanctions, including striking the filing, filing restrictions, monetary sanctions or dismissal. The presiding judge may also refer an attorney to the Court's Disciplinary and Admissions Committee. The order does not require a disclosure or certification of AI use. Key points: - Applies to attorneys and unrepresented parties filing in the District of Maryland. - Reminds filers of the Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) certification; verification is required, especially when AI is used. - Listed sanctions: striking, filing restrictions, monetary sanctions, dismissal, and any other sanction the presiding judge considers appropriate (Rule 11(c)). - Possible referral to the Court's Disciplinary and Admissions Committee. - No AI-use disclosure or certification requirement appears in the text. #### Mezu v. Mezu, 267 Md. App. 354 (2025), No. 361, September Term, 2025 (reported opinion): citations to fictitious cases generated by AI - Type: Judgment - Issuer: Appellate Court of Maryland - Date on page: 29 October 2025 - Effective date: 29 October 2025 - Status: 29 October 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2025/0361s25.pdf A reported appellate opinion addressing a brief that cited fictitious cases and cases that did not support the stated propositions. The Court said an attorney's signature under Rule 1-311(b) implies the attorney has read the cited authorities, and that the conduct implicated Rules 19-301.1, 19-303.1 and 19-305.3. It did not impose monetary sanctions because none was requested, but referred the attorney to the Attorney Grievance Commission, and invited the General Assembly and Rules Committee to consider a specific sanctions provision. Key points: - Counsel must personally read and verify cited authority; relying on a non-lawyer clerk or summaries is not enough. - Supervision duty (Rule 19-305.3(b)) applies to work delegated to non-lawyer staff. - Court referred counsel to the Attorney Grievance Commission under Rule 18-102.15. - No monetary sanction was imposed because none was requested and no authority was cited for imposing one unprompted. ### State bar and regulators #### AI Insights & Resources Hub: AI Ethical Considerations (Overview of Ethical Considerations for Attorney Use of Generative AI Technologies) - Type: Law society or bar guidance · Bar guidance - Issuer: Maryland State Bar Association (AI and Legal Technology Task Force) - Date on page: Not stated - Effective date: Not stated - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://msba.org/site/content/Resources-and-Tools-Content/AI-Resource-Hub-Tabs/AI-Ethical-Considerations.aspx The Maryland State Bar Association's hub page points lawyers to ABA Formal Opinion 512, the MSBA's summary of it, the Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional Conduct, and an overview from its AI and Legal Technology Task Force on the risks of using generative AI in practice. The hub describes the overview as educational for Maryland attorneys. No formal MSBA ethics opinion specific to generative AI was found. Key points: - Educational resource, not a formal ethics opinion or binding rule. - Relies on ABA Formal Opinion 512 as the main framework. - Content of the Task Force overview was not read for this record. ## 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)](https://www.mdcourts.gov/sites/default/files/rules/reports/229threport.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - United States District Court for the District of Maryland: [Standing Order 2026-03: In re Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings](https://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/sites/mdd/files/2026-03.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - 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](https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2025/0361s25.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - 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)](https://msba.org/site/content/Resources-and-Tools-Content/AI-Resource-Hub-Tabs/AI-Ethical-Considerations.aspx) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Standing Committee on Rules](https://www.mdcourts.gov/sites/default/files/minutes-rules/minutes20260625.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Maryland Courts](https://www.mdcourts.gov/rules/ruleschanges) · last checked 31 October 2026 ## Key facts - Kind: State - Task versions written for this jurisdiction: 0 - AI instruments recorded: 4 *Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*