STATE EVIDENCE REPORT

Maryland

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

Matched records29

Source linked100%

Known amount total$1

Recorded rangeSep 9, 2025 – Aug 26, 2026

EVIDENCE-BASED ANSWER

What patterns appear in the public records associated with Maryland?

AI Vortex currently links 29 source-linked public matters associated with Maryland. The most frequently recorded issue signals are Fabricated authorities (26), Misrepresented authority (15) and Fabricated or altered quotations (10). Recorded responses and outcomes include Warning or admonishment (11), No adjudicated consequence recorded (9) and Filing or pleading struck (3). Categories can overlap within the same matter, and these counts describe this public corpus rather than the overall behavior or sanction rate of the state.

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 authorities26 · 89.7%Misrepresented authority15 · 51.7%Fabricated or altered quotations10 · 34.5%

Issue categories can overlap within one matter.

RECORDED RESPONSES

How did courts or authorities respond?

Warning or admonishment11 · 37.9%No adjudicated consequence recorded9 · 31%Filing or pleading struck3 · 10.3%Order to show cause3 · 10.3%Bar or professional referral2 · 6.9%Professional discipline2 · 6.9%

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

PARTICIPANT CONTEXT

Who appears in these matters?

Lawyer14 · 48.3%Pro Se Litigant14 · 48.3%Judge1 · 3.4%

MATTER CONTEXT

Which practice areas are represented?

Contract9 · 31%Civil Rights4 · 13.8%Family4 · 13.8%Employment3 · 10.3%Administrative2 · 6.9%

UNDERLYING EVIDENCE

Selected public records behind this report

Showing 12 of 29

Aug 26, 2026Darrin L. Johnson, Jr. v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, et al.D. MarylandAI (implied, unspecified)Source

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

Aug 11, 2026Eyong v. 72 Barrow St. Realty Corp.AC MarylandAI (implied, unspecified)Source

Jul 28, 2026Campbell v. TidalHealth, Inc.D. MarylandUnidentifiedSource

Jul 20, 2026Khan v. Howard County BAPCA MarylandAI (implied, unspecified)Source

Jul 17, 2026Abybatou Mbow v. Officer Michael Mackert et al. (2)D. MarylandAI (implied, unspecified)Source

Jul 13, 2026Paige Warthen v. Barclays Bank Delaware (Warthen I, II, III)D. MarylandAI (implied, unspecified)Source

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

Jun 4, 2026Lafaye B. Brown v. James E. Clarke, et al.CA MarylandAI (implied, unspecified)Source

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

May 4, 2026Devin A. Robinson v. Velosio, LLCD. MarylandAI (implied, unspecified)Source

May 1, 2026Yasmani Gurri Rubio v. Markwayne Mullin, et al.D. MarylandAI (implied, unspecified)Source

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 States29 shared records Fake Citations26 shared records D. Maryland18 shared records Misrepresented Authority15 shared records Warning11 shared records Fabricated Quotes10 shared records