Incident Tracker

Mezu v. Mezu (Md. App. Ct. 2025), No. 361 Sept. Term 2025

referral

Maryland's intermediate appellate court referred an attorney to the state Attorney Grievance Commission after his client's brief cited multiple fictitious ChatGPT-generated cases and he conceded he routinely did not read the authorities he cited — a bar-discipline referral rather than a monetary sanction.

Date of decision/order

2025-10-29

Court

Appellate Court of Maryland

Jurisdiction

US-STATE

AI tool

ChatGPT

Conduct

The mother's appellate brief cited multiple fictitious AI-generated cases and cases not supporting the propositions cited. At oral argument, counsel admitted he typically did not read the cases he cited.

Consequence

See outcome

Regulatory outcome

Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission: The court referred the attorney to the Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission based on the nature and severity of the conduct. (2025-10-29)