Regulation Tracker / legislation / MD
MD HB 966: Courts - Artificial Intelligence Evidence Clinic Pilot Program - Establishment
Maryland legislature · 2025 Regular · Del. Cardin
Status as of
Died
Last action: Favorable Report by Judicial Proceedings; Withdrawn.
Maryland HB 966 is the House version of the Artificial Intelligence Evidence Clinic Pilot Program. It would place AI expertise in the Administrative Office of the Courts for expert testimony on electronic evidence possibly created or altered with AI and prioritize unrepresented civil litigants. The bill failed after Senate action on April 7, 2025.
Operative sections
- Courts & Jud. Proc. §13-101.2(B): establishes an Artificial Intelligence Evidence Clinic Pilot Program in the Administrative Office of the Courts.
- Courts & Jud. Proc. §13-101.2(C)(1): the program provides expert testimony on authenticity of electronic evidence that may have been AI-created or altered.
- Courts & Jud. Proc. §13-101.2(C)(3): the program prioritizes civil cases with unrepresented parties or limited access to expert testimony.
Text
(B) THERE IS AN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE EVIDENCE CLINIC PILOT PROGRAM IN THE OFFICE. (C) (1) THE PURPOSE OF THE PROGRAM IS TO PROVIDE EXPERTISE IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TO THE CIRCUIT COURTS AND THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE FORM OF EXPERT TESTIMONY ON THE AUTHENTICITY OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE THAT A COURT DETERMINES MAY HAVE BEEN CREATED OR ALTERED USING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. (2) THE PROGRAM SHALL ENGAGE ... TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONALS ... TO DEVELOP EXPERT WITNESS RESOURCES FOR COURTS TO USE IN CASES IMPLICATING THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.
Verbatim operative text; legislative text is a government edict and public domain. Full text · History
What already applies in Maryland
The bill sits alongside rules courts and regulators have already issued, and decisions courts have already handed down, in the same jurisdiction — from the regulation tracker and the court-decisions corpus.
Rules and guidance in force
- Mezu v. Mezu, No. 361, Sept. Term 2025 (Appellate Court of Maryland, reported, 29 Oct 2025)Appellate Court of Maryland
Maryland's leading AI-hallucination decision. The Appellate Court of Maryland published Mezu as a warning to the bar, holding that failing to read AI-generated citations before filing can produce briefs citing multiple fictitious cases, and referred the signing attorney to the Attorney Grievance Commission. Delegation to a law clerk was no defence.
Decisions on the record
- Johnson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLCUnited States District Court for the District of Maryland · 2026-08-26
The District of Maryland dismisses Johnson’s mortgage-related claims and flags another hallucinated citation from the self-represented plaintiff. The court says Cooke v. Carrington Mortgage Services, as cited to the Fourth Circuit and Westlaw, does not exist, but declines further Rule 11 action because the case is dismissed.
- Eyong v. 72 Barrow St. Realty Corp.Appellate Court of Maryland · 2026-08-11
The Appellate Court of Maryland affirms judgment for 72 Barrow St. Realty and taxes costs to Simon Eyong. The per curiam opinion notes earlier orders striking large portions of his self-represented briefs for fictitious legal citations and inaccurate summaries, and leaves a sanctions motion for remand.
- Campbell v. TidalHealth, Inc.United States District Court for the District of Maryland · 2026-07-28
The District of Maryland denies discovery sanctions in a pro se employment case and addresses possible generative-AI misuse. The court says Campbell’s filings do not outright hallucinate cases but misdescribe Aguilar and Mancia, corroborating admitted tool use, and cautions that future errors may draw fees or sanctions.
- Lafaye B. Brown v. James E. Clarke, et al.Appellate Court of Maryland · 2026-06-04
On 2026-06-04, in Lafaye B. Brown v. James E. Clarke, et al, Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the foreclosure rulings and noted that the appellant's reply brief used a quotation found nowhere in Maryland or other case law. A self-represented appellant filed a reply brief using quotations that did not appear in the cited source.
- Brandy Dorsey v. Walter Livramento, IIIAppellate Court of Maryland · 2026-05-20
On 2026-05-20, in Brandy Dorsey v. Walter Livramento, III, Appellate Court of Maryland warned the filer that future use of false, nonexistent, or unsupported authorities may result in sanctions. A self-represented appellant filed a brief using numerous nonexistent or hallucinated authorities and authorities used for propositions they did not support.