COURT EVIDENCE REPORT

CA Maryland

A print-ready review packet of the issues, recorded responses, participant context, and source-linked matters currently associated with this profile.

Matched records10

Source linked100%

Known USD amount totalNone recorded

Recorded rangeSep 9, 2025 – Aug 25, 2026

EVIDENCE-BASED ANSWER

What kinds of legal AI issues and responses appear in CA Maryland?

AI Vortex currently links 10 source-linked public matters associated with CA Maryland. The most frequently recorded issue signals are Fabricated authorities (9), Misrepresented authority (5) and Fabricated or altered quotations (4). Recorded responses and outcomes include No adjudicated consequence recorded (3), Bar or professional referral (2) and Filing or pleading struck (2). Categories can overlap within the same matter, and these counts describe this public corpus rather than the overall behavior or sanction rate of the court.

Every distribution below links to the exact matching records. This report does not convert corpus counts into a behavioral prediction.

OBSERVED ISSUE MIX

What problems appear in these records?

Fabricated authorities9 · 90%Misrepresented authority5 · 50%Fabricated or altered quotations4 · 40%

Issue categories can overlap within one matter.

RECORDED RESPONSES

How did courts or authorities respond?

No adjudicated consequence recorded3 · 30%Bar or professional referral2 · 20%Filing or pleading struck2 · 20%Professional discipline2 · 20%Warning or admonishment2 · 20%Order to show cause1 · 10%

A recorded response does not imply that every matter ended in a sanction.

PARTICIPANT CONTEXT

Who appears in these matters?

Lawyer5 · 50%Pro Se Litigant4 · 40%Judge1 · 10%

MATTER CONTEXT

Which practice areas are represented?

Family4 · 40%Contract2 · 20%Administrative1 · 10%Criminal1 · 10%Immigration1 · 10%

UNDERLYING EVIDENCE

Selected public records behind this report

Showing 10 of 10

Aug 25, 2026Benjamin v. StateCA MarylandAI (implied, unspecified)Source

Jul 20, 2026Khan v. Howard County BAPCA MarylandUnidentifiedSource

Jun 16, 2026Olutosin Ajakaiye v. Omowunmi H. OladipupoCA MarylandAI (implied, unspecified)Source

Jun 4, 2026Lafaye B. Brown v. James E. Clarke, et al.CA MarylandNo tool named in sourceSource

May 20, 2026Brandy Dorsey v. Walter Livramento, IIICA MarylandAI (implied, unspecified)Source

Apr 29, 2026Amparo Trejo v. Miguel Angel Amaya HernandezCA MarylandNo tool named in sourceSource

Apr 23, 2026Fatima Meziane v. Abdelouahab AitoucheCA MarylandAI (implied, unspecified)Source

Jan 14, 2026Boyd v. LeeCA MarylandAI (implied, unspecified)Source

Oct 29, 2025Mezu v. MezuCA MarylandChatGPTSource

Sep 9, 2025Rotibi v. RealPage, Inc.CA MarylandNo tool named in sourceSource

Open all matching records

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

Scope, traceability, and limits

This report groups existing structured public-record fields. For judges, the counts describe matters in which that person is recorded as a decision-maker; they do not establish general practices, sanction rates, or future behavior.

The complete docket, later history, local rules, standing orders, and controlling primary materials remain authoritative.

CONNECTED INTELLIGENCE

Related corpus profiles

United States10 shared records Maryland10 shared records Fake Citations9 shared records Misrepresented Authority5 shared records Fabricated Quotes4 shared records None Adjudicated3 shared records

Cite this page

Bluebook: AI Vortex, CA Maryland Evidence Report, Legal AI Risk Tracker (updated Oct. 28, 2026), https://www.aivortex.io/legal-ai-risk/courts/ca-maryland/report (last visited Oct. 28, 2026).
APA: AI Vortex. (2026, October 28). CA Maryland Evidence Report. Legal AI Risk Tracker. Retrieved October 28, 2026, from https://www.aivortex.io/legal-ai-risk/courts/ca-maryland/report
URL: https://www.aivortex.io/legal-ai-risk/courts/ca-maryland/report (accessed 2026-10-28)

Cites the AI Vortex page, not the underlying decision; cite the court's own document for the holding.