Chukwuemeka Mezu v. Kristen Mezu, No. 361, September Term, 2025. Opinion by Graeff, J.

CITATIONS TO FICTITIOUS CASES GENERATED BY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2025/0361s25.pdf

Although using artificial intelligence (“AI”) may be a valuable tool in legal practice, this case of first impression in Maryland shows that it must be used carefully and responsibly. Attorneys presenting briefs and pleadings containing fraudulent, incorrect, inaccurate, or fictitious case citations, which result from AI “hallucinations” are becoming more common throughout the country.

The appeal arose from a Motion to Invalidate portions of a Marital Settlement Agreement (“the MSA”) entered into by Kristen Mezu (“Mother”) and Chukwuemeka Mezu (“Father”) after the Mother filed a Complaint for Absolute Divorce.  In the brief, the Mother’s attorney citated to fake cases generated by artificial intelligence (“AI”).  The brief had numerous irregularities including citations to multiple fictitious cases, as well as misquoted passages and citations to cases that did not support the proposition for which they were cited.

In this case, an attorney failed to read the AI generated citations submitted in a brief prepared by his law clerk which resulted in the attorney arguing multiple fictitious cases and cases that do not support the proposition for which they were cited. The law clerk primarily used ChatGPT and VLex, but she also visited Court Listener, CaseMine, and Justia. She stated that she “was not aware that these sites were controlled by AI, or that the search results produced by these sites were the product of AI.” The law clerk then finalized her draft and forwarded it to counsel. As a result, and based on the nature and severity of the conduct in this case, the Court referred the attorney to the Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission.

Some of the relevant rules cited by the court include:

1. Maryland Rule 1-311(b) which provides: “The signature of an attorney on a pleading or paper constitutes a certification that the attorney has read the pleading or paper; that to the best of the attorney’s knowledge, information, and belief there is good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for improper purpose or delay.”
2. Maryland Attorney’s Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 19-303.1 mandates that attorneys bring or defend only meritorious issues

The Appellate Court of Maryland issued this case as a warning to others and to help the trial courts determine the court’s appropriate response in this and future cases. The use of AI in a legal practice is not inherently problematic, and it may be a valuable tool. The failure to use AI responsibly in legal research raises ethical issues and can result in sanctions when used improperly. It is unquestionably improper for an attorney to submit a brief with fake cases generated by AI.