The Maryland State Bar Association has not issued any formal ethics opinion specifically addressing generative AI use by attorneys. As of early 2026, Maryland relies on general competence and ethics rules to govern AI use, without AI-specific guidance or a published task force report.
Maryland's proximity to the District of Columbia — which issued DC Bar Ethics Opinion 388 in October 2024 with detailed AI guidance — creates an unusual dynamic. Many Maryland attorneys hold DC bar membership and practice in both jurisdictions. DC's comprehensive opinion on billing, confidentiality, and disclosure effectively sets a higher floor for Maryland practitioners who cross jurisdictional lines.
What the Bar Says
The Maryland State Bar Association has issued no formal opinion or advisory guidance on AI use by attorneys. General competence rules apply, but there is no AI-specific interpretation.
Maryland's Rules of Professional Conduct (Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional Conduct under Title 19) include the standard competence, confidentiality, and fee requirements. Maryland adopted Comment 8 to Rule 19-301.1 (technology competence), meaning attorneys have a recognized duty to stay current with practice-relevant technology — including AI tools.
Billing Implications
Maryland provides no AI-specific billing guidance. Rule 19-301.5 requires fees to be reasonable, applying the standard multi-factor test.
The DC influence matters here. Maryland attorneys who also practice in DC must comply with DC Bar Ethics Opinion 388's billing requirements, which mandate transparency and reasonable billing for AI-assisted work. Even for Maryland-only practitioners, the expectation is shifting. Corporate clients in the Baltimore-Washington corridor increasingly expect AI efficiency to translate into fee reductions or value-based billing arrangements.
Confidentiality Rules
Maryland's general competence rules apply to AI confidentiality, but there is no AI-specific guidance. Rule 19-301.6 requires reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized disclosure of client information.
Maryland's technology competence requirement (Comment 8 to Rule 19-301.1) strengthens the argument that attorneys must affirmatively evaluate AI tools before use. The duty is not passive — attorneys must understand how AI processes data, whether tools retain inputs, and what security measures are in place. Government and defense contracting work, common in Maryland, often carries additional confidentiality requirements beyond standard ethics rules.
What's Still Unclear
Maryland has not addressed AI disclosure, billing specifics, vendor vetting, or supervision frameworks. The technology competence amendment provides a foundation but leaves significant implementation gaps.
The most pressing issue for Maryland attorneys: the DC crossover problem. Attorneys admitted in both Maryland and DC face DC's detailed AI requirements even when working on Maryland matters from a Maryland office, depending on choice-of-law analysis for ethics rules. The safest approach is to meet the higher DC standard for all work. Maryland's federal courts (Districts of Maryland) may also adopt independent AI disclosure requirements.
The Bottom Line: Maryland has no AI-specific guidance but its technology competence duty and proximity to DC's detailed Ethics Opinion 388 create a de facto higher standard for the region.
AI-Assisted Research. This piece was researched and written with AI assistance, reviewed and edited by Manu Ayala. For deeper takes and the perspective behind the research, follow me on LinkedIn or email me directly.