Regulation Tracker / United States (state)
Mezu v. Mezu, No. 361, Sept. Term 2025 (Appellate Court of Maryland, reported, 29 Oct 2025)
Appellate Court of Maryland · Maryland
last revised 2025-10-29last verified 2026-09-041 versioncountry page →
Judgment (guidance)In forceVerification dutySupervision
map categories:Sanctions for AI misuseDuty to verify AI outputSupervision of AI workDisclosure of AI use in filings
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.
- Applies to
- lawyers, firms
- Effective
- See version history
- Current version
- Reported opinion · 29 Oct 2025
- Last verified
- 04 Sept 2026
- Official text
- www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2025/0361s25.pdf
What the document requires
- The court reported the case to address the recurring problem of AI-drafted briefs containing incorrect, inaccurate or fictitious citations
- The brief contained citations to multiple fictitious cases, misquoted passages, and citations that did not support the propositions cited
- Failure to read AI-generated citations before filing is the operative breach
- Based on the nature and severity of the conduct the court referred the attorney to the Attorney Grievance Commission
- Delegation of research to a law clerk did not excuse the signing attorney
Version history
| Version | Date | What changed | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reported opinioncurrent | 2025-10-29 | Reported opinion issued | official |
Related court incidents on the record
- Johnson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. 1:25-cv-00855-JRR (D. Md.)2026-08-26 Warning
- Benjamin v. State, No. 801 Sept. Term 2024 (Md. App. Ct.)2026-08-25 Warning
Sources
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "Mezu v. Mezu, No. 361, Sept. Term 2025 (Appellate Court of Maryland, reported, 29 Oct 2025)" (Appellate Court of Maryland, Reported opinion, 2025-10-29), safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-md-mezu-v-mezu (accessed 2026-09-04). Data: CC BY 4.0.
More official documents in United States (state)
- Connecticut Judicial Branch, Committee on Artificial Intelligence in the Connecticut Legal System: Final Report · Connecticut Judicial Branch
- Connecticut Practice Book Section 4-9: Generative Artificial Intelligence Compliance · Connecticut Judicial Branch
- In re Amendments to Article V, Rule 1.1 of the Supreme Court Rules (Professional Conduct) and Adoption of Interim Generative AI Guidelines · RI Supreme Court
- Ohio Ethics Guide: Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers and Judicial Officers · Ohio Board of Professional Conduct
- 22 NYCRR Part 161 — Use of Artificial Intelligence Technology · NY Unified Court System
- In re Amendments to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515 (generative AI), SC2026-0673 · Florida Supreme Court