Maryland

Does Maryland require attorneys to disclose AI use in court filings? No — not yet. But Maryland is closer to formal action than most no-rule states. The Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure has recommended amending Maryland Rule 1-311 to specifically address AI hallucinations in court filings. That recommendation hasn't been adopted, but it represents concrete institutional momentum toward regulation.

Maryland's proximity to Washington, D.C. adds another dimension. Many Maryland attorneys also practice in D.C. federal courts and before federal agencies, where AI expectations are evolving rapidly. The gap between what D.C.-area federal practice demands and what Maryland state courts currently require creates a compliance tension that managing partners need to resolve firm-wide.

The Standing Committee's Rule 1-311 Recommendation

Maryland's Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure has recommended amending Rule 1-311 — which governs signing of pleadings and other papers — to address AI hallucinations specifically. This is a significant step. Rule 1-311 is Maryland's equivalent of a certification requirement: when you sign a filing, you're certifying that its contents have a basis in law and fact. The proposed amendment would make explicit that this certification covers AI-generated content and that attorneys are responsible for verifying AI outputs before signing. The recommendation hasn't been adopted by the Maryland Court of Appeals (now the Supreme Court of Maryland), but its existence signals clear institutional intent to act.

What Maryland Currently Requires: Existing Rules

Until the Rule 1-311 amendment is adopted, Maryland attorneys operate under existing rules. The Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional Conduct (MARPC) follow the ABA Model Rules framework. Rule 19-301.1 (competence) requires understanding AI tools. Rule 19-303.3 (candor) prohibits fabricated citations. Rule 19-301.6 (confidentiality) governs data handling. Rule 19-305.3 (supervision) makes attorneys responsible for AI outputs. The proposed Rule 1-311 amendment doesn't create new obligations so much as it makes existing obligations explicit in the AI context. Even without the amendment, submitting AI-hallucinated content violates current Maryland rules.

The D.C. Factor: Cross-Border Practice Reality

Maryland's legal market is deeply intertwined with Washington, D.C. Thousands of Maryland-barred attorneys practice in D.C. federal courts, before federal agencies, and on matters governed by D.C. law. The D.C. federal courts have their own AI requirements. Federal agencies are developing AI policies that affect administrative practice. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, headquartered in Alexandria but central to the D.C.-Maryland legal market, has addressed AI in patent practice. For Maryland firms — especially those in Montgomery County, Prince George's County, and Baltimore — the practical compliance standard is set by the strictest jurisdiction in your practice footprint, which is often a D.C. federal court, not a Maryland state court.

How Maryland Compares to Neighboring Jurisdictions

Maryland's Standing Committee recommendation puts it ahead of most no-rule states on the path to formal regulation. Virginia has taken its own approach to AI in legal practice. D.C. has federal court AI requirements. Delaware has its Commission on Law and Technology studying AI. Pennsylvania has addressed AI through multiple channels. West Virginia remains largely silent. Maryland occupies a middle position: further along than silent states, but behind jurisdictions that have already adopted formal rules. The Rule 1-311 recommendation positions Maryland to move quickly if the Supreme Court of Maryland decides to act.

What Maryland Practitioners Should Do Now

Treat the Rule 1-311 amendment as if it's already in effect — because its substance already is. Every time you sign a filing under Rule 1-311, you're certifying that its contents have a basis in law and fact. If AI generated part of that filing and hallucinated a citation, your signature is on a document that fails that certification. The amendment just makes this explicit. Verify every AI-generated citation. Document your verification process. Create a firm-wide AI policy that addresses both Maryland state practice and D.C. federal practice. Train everyone on the specific Rule 1-311 certification obligation. When the amendment is formally adopted, you'll already be compliant.

The Bottom Line: Maryland hasn't adopted an AI rule yet, but the Standing Committee's recommendation to amend Rule 1-311 for AI hallucinations signals formal action is imminent — and the rule's substance (you certify accuracy when you sign) already applies to AI-generated content.