Maryland's Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure voted unanimously on March 25, 2026 to adopt a new rule requiring attorneys to personally verify every legal citation before filing. The rule change was triggered by a Bel Air divorce attorney whose clerk used ChatGPT to draft a brief filled with fabricated case names, and who admitted he typically does not read the cases he cites. Maryland attorneys who file documents with unverified citations now face monetary sanctions.
Key Facts
| Detail | Summary |
|---|---|
| What happened | Maryland's rules committee voted unanimously to ban filing documents with fabricated legal citations |
| When | March 25, 2026 |
| Who triggered it | Bel Air divorce attorney Adam Hyman, whose clerk used ChatGPT to draft a brief with fake cases |
| Key admission | Hyman told investigators he typically does not read the cases he cites in briefs |
| New requirement | An attorney's signature certifies they have verified every cited authority |
| Penalty | Monetary sanctions for filing unverified or fabricated citations |
This Rule Changes How Maryland Attorneys Must Handle AI-Drafted Legal Work
Maryland is now among the growing number of jurisdictions drawing a hard line between using AI as a drafting tool and submitting AI output without human review. The distinction matters enormously. Under the new rule, every signature on a filed document is an affirmative certification that the attorney has independently verified each cited authority actually exists and says what the brief claims it says.
This goes beyond general professional responsibility obligations. Maryland Rule 19-303.3 (the Maryland equivalent of ABA Model Rule 3.3) already prohibits attorneys from making false statements of law to a tribunal. What the new rule adds is a specific, enforceable verification duty tied to the act of signing and filing. An attorney can no longer delegate citation checking entirely to a clerk, paralegal, or AI system and claim ignorance when fabricated authorities appear.
The triggering incident is instructive. According to The Daily Record, attorney Adam Hyman's clerk used ChatGPT to draft a family law brief. The resulting document contained case citations that did not correspond to real opinions. When the issue surfaced, Hyman acknowledged that he does not typically read the cases cited in his filings. That admission alone likely accelerated the committee's unanimous vote.
The problem is not unique to Maryland. In June 2023, New York attorney Steven Schwartz was sanctioned $5,000 after submitting a ChatGPT-drafted brief in Mata v. Avianca containing six entirely fabricated case citations. A Texas federal court imposed sanctions in a similar incident in 2024. Maryland's rules committee appears to have studied these precedents and decided to act preemptively rather than wait for repeated sanctions on a case-by-case basis.
How Maryland Law Already Addresses Attorney Competence and Candor
Maryland's existing professional conduct rules provide a foundation that the new rule builds upon. Maryland Rule 19-301.1 requires attorneys to provide competent representation, which the Maryland Court of Appeals has interpreted to include staying current with technology changes relevant to practice. Maryland Rule 19-303.3 imposes a duty of candor to tribunals, prohibiting false statements of law or fact.
Maryland Rule 19-303.4 addresses fairness to opposing parties, including the obligation not to knowingly disobey court rules. Maryland Rule 19-305.1 governs supervisory responsibilities, making partners and supervising attorneys responsible for ensuring subordinates (including non-lawyer staff) comply with ethics rules.
The new citation-verification rule closes a gap these existing provisions left open. Previously, an attorney could theoretically argue that submitting a fabricated citation was negligent rather than knowing, particularly when the AI output looked facially plausible. The new rule eliminates that defense. Signing the document is the verification. If the citation is fake, the attorney is responsible regardless of intent.
Maryland family law cases are particularly vulnerable to this problem. Divorce proceedings frequently involve contested issues of property division under Md. Code, Fam. Law § 8-205, alimony under Md. Code, Fam. Law § 11-106, and child custody under Md. Code, Fam. Law § 9-101. These areas generate extensive case law, and a fabricated citation in a custody brief could directly affect a child's living situation before anyone catches the error.
Practical Takeaways for Maryland Attorneys and Their Clients
-
Every Maryland attorney must now independently verify that each case, statute, or secondary authority cited in a filing exists and supports the proposition for which it is cited. Westlaw, Lexis, or free databases like Google Scholar all work. ChatGPT does not.
-
Law firms using AI drafting tools should implement a mandatory verification step in their workflow. This means someone with legal training checks every citation against an authoritative legal database before the supervising attorney signs off.
-
Attorneys who rely on clerks or paralegals for brief drafting need documented review procedures. Under Maryland Rule 19-305.1, the supervising attorney bears responsibility for the final product regardless of who produced the first draft.
-
Clients going through a Maryland divorce should ask their attorney directly whether the firm uses AI tools in drafting and what verification procedures are in place. You have a right to know whether the legal arguments being made on your behalf are supported by real case law.
-
If you suspect a brief filed in your case contains fabricated citations, bring it to the court's attention immediately. Under the new rule, opposing counsel may also face scrutiny for not flagging obviously fictitious authorities.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can Maryland attorneys still use ChatGPT or other AI tools for legal work?
Yes. The new rule does not ban AI use in legal practice. It requires that attorneys independently verify every citation before filing. An attorney can use AI to generate a first draft, brainstorm arguments, or organize research, but must confirm every cited case and statute exists in an authoritative legal database like Westlaw or Lexis before signing and filing the document.
What sanctions can a Maryland attorney face for filing fabricated citations under the new rule?
The new rule authorizes monetary sanctions for attorneys who file documents containing unverified or fabricated citations. Additionally, existing Maryland Rule 19-303.3 (candor to tribunal) violations can result in disciplinary proceedings through the Attorney Grievance Commission, which can impose penalties ranging from reprimand to disbarment depending on the severity and whether the conduct was knowing.
How does this affect my pending Maryland divorce case?
If your attorney has filed briefs in your case, the new verification requirement applies to all future filings. For documents already filed, the existing rules against false statements to tribunals under Maryland Rule 19-303.3 still apply. If you have concerns about citations in previously filed documents, raise them with your attorney or the court directly.
Was attorney Adam Hyman disciplined for the ChatGPT brief incident?
According to The Daily Record's March 25, 2026 reporting, Hyman was referred to the Attorney Grievance Commission, which investigates attorney misconduct in Maryland. The Commission's proceedings are typically confidential until a formal disciplinary action is taken. The rules committee's unanimous vote to adopt the new citation-verification rule was a direct response to this incident.
Are other states adopting similar rules about AI-generated legal citations?
Multiple jurisdictions have addressed AI in legal filings since the 2023 Mata v. Avianca incident in New York. Texas, Florida, and several federal courts have issued standing orders requiring AI disclosure. Maryland's approach goes further by creating a specific verification duty with monetary sanctions, making it one of the most enforcement-oriented rules adopted as of March 2026.
If you are going through a divorce in Maryland and want to speak with an attorney who stays current on these professional responsibility developments, find your county's exclusive attorney on divorce.law.
This article discusses recent news and provides general legal commentary. It does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique. Consult a qualified family law attorney for advice specific to your situation.