Skip to content

Incident Tracker / United States (state)

Benjamin v. State, No. 2189 Sept. Term 2024 (Md. App. Ct.)

·Appellate Court of Maryland·US-STATEWarning

In Maryland, appellate counsel filed a criminal brief with multiple inaccurate citations. The Appellate Court compared the problem to Mezu, said fake AI-generated cases are improper, accepted counsel's corrective efforts, declined to refer counsel to the Attorney Grievance Commission and warned lawyers to verify all AI-generated citations before filing.

Court
Appellate Court of Maryland
Date
2026-08-25
Who used the AI
Lawyer
AI tool
Not identified in the record
Conduct
Appellant's counsel filed a criminal-appeal brief with multiple inaccurate citations. Citing Mezu, the court said fake AI-generated cases are improper, noted counsel's errors were not excessive and not wholly made up, declined a disciplinary referral, and warned counsel to verify AI-generated citations.
Outcome
Warning
Penalty
No monetary penalty recorded
Regulatory outcome
No separate regulatory disposition recorded
Status
Verified against listed sources
Last checked
2026-09-04

What was fabricated or misused

  • Multiple inaccurate case citations in appellant's July 15, 2025 brief — the court did not list them, and said they were not excessive and did not include totally made up cases

What the court said

“Appellant's brief, which was filed on July 15, 2025, contained multiple inaccurate case citations.”
Appellate Court of Maryland, *4
“Here, counsel for appellant has not admitted that the mistakes in the brief were due to the use of AI, but that seems likely.”
Appellate Court of Maryland, *4
“In this case, however, the brief was filed before the decision in Mezu, the inaccuracies were not excessive and did not include totally made up cases, counsel tried to correct the errors before the State filed its brief, and the State does not contend that it was harmed.”
Appellate Court of Maryland, *4
“We again urge counsel, however, to use AI responsibly and check the accuracy of all citations before submitting a brief to this Court, or any other court.”
Appellate Court of Maryland, *4

Timeline

  1. Appellant entered a conditional guilty plea and was sentenced.
  2. Appellant's brief filed with multiple inaccurate case citations.
  3. Appellant filed notice of errata attempting to correct citation irregularities.
  4. Court denied request to strike and correct brief three days before State's brief deadline.
  5. Mezu decision issued addressing AI use in Maryland appellate briefs.
  6. Appellate Court affirmed and declined an Attorney Grievance Commission referral.

Why this case matters

Benjamin is useful because the same Maryland appellate court that referred counsel in Mezu chose a warning here. The court identified likely AI-related citation errors, but distinguished the record: the brief predated Mezu, the mistakes were not excessive, no wholly made-up cases appeared, counsel tried to correct them, and the State claimed no harm. The entry helps show the Maryland court’s line between referral and warning when appellate citations are inaccurate rather than fictitious.

Practice note

Maryland appellate counsel should run a citation audit before filing and again before the opposing brief deadline if errors are found. The audit should verify reporter citations, case names and the proposition each case supports. If a filed brief contains citation errors, seek correction promptly with a clean substitute brief and a clear explanation, rather than waiting for oral argument.

Primary sources for this incident

Related regulation records for this incident

Similar incidents on the record

  • Kiser v. DeSimone Auto Group, No. 2428 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. Ct.)2026-08-27 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · WarningIn Pennsylvania, counsel for Paige and Ty Kiser cited a non-existent Superior Court decision, Com. v. Reid, for an appellate issue in a consumer dispute. The Superior Court called the authority counterfeit, suggested ch…
  • Kid International, LLC v. City National Bank of Florida, No. 4D2025-2599 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)2026-10-07 · District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District · SanctionsIn Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal, counsel for Kid International filed an AI-assisted brief citing a hallucinated case seven times and fabricated quotations from real authorities. The court affirmed on the me…
  • Cervantes v. Bianco, No. S295866 (Cal. Sept. 24, 2026)2026-09-24 · Supreme Court of California · Regulatory referralIn California, the state Supreme Court disapproved the improper use of AI tools in the Riverside County sheriff's briefing in a ballot-seizure writ case, after the law firm misquoted Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors…
  • Eric Posey v. Summer Bushnell, Docket No. 52072 (Idaho 2026)2026-09-22 · Idaho Supreme Court · WarningIn Idaho, the state supreme court affirmed Eric Posey's defamation judgment after finding Summer Bushnell's pro se appellate briefing relied on fabricated or inaccurate quotations and possibly unverified AI output. The…

Cite this record

SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Benjamin v. State, No. 2189 Sept. Term 2024 (Md. App. Ct.)”, safelegalai.com/tracker/benjamin-v-state (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.

Report an issue with this record →