It had to happen at some point: a lawyer would unsuspectingly submit a brief prepared with the help of generative artificial intelligence to a Maryland appellate court, and our courts would answer the question of what the consequences would be. Last week, in Mezu v. Mezu, No. 316, September Term 2025 (October 29, 2025), the Appellate Court of Maryland gave us the answer — a referral to the Attorney Grievance Commission.
The Mezu appeal arose from an order issued by the Circuit Court for Harford County modifying a marital settlement agreement. According to the ACM, the issues on appeal were not novel and did not require a reported opinion; however, when preparing for oral argument, Justices Graeff, Arthur, and Woodward found citation irregularities, which led them to issue an Order to Show Cause why the Appellant’s Counsel should not be sanctioned or referred to the AGC. The Order to Show Cause required a sworn, written submission explaining how and why the lawyer submitted a brief with fictitious cases.
From the opinion, we learn the lawyer complied with the Order to Show Cause, providing a detailed submission in which he admitted his failures. According to the response to the Order to Show Cause, the lawyer collaborated on the brief with a law clerk he employed. The law clerk used ChatGPT and VLex for assistance. The lawyer reviewed the brief, made changes, and asked the law clerk to review the citations for accuracy. The law clerk claimed the cites were verified. That said, the lawyer admitted he did not read the cases, instead relying upon his clerk, who, according to the Court, “also did not read the cases.”
The ACM decided to refer the lawyer to the AGC for potential violations of Rules 19-301.1, 19-303.1, and 19-305.3. The ACM believed it was obligatory to report the lawyer under Md. Rule 18-102.15 because corrective measures were required. The ACM was particularly concerned with the lawyer’s admission that he did not read the cases he cited in his brief and his admission that he primarily relies on case law summaries and treatises rather than reading the cases. Additionally, the court did not appreciate the lawyer’s lack of remorse, which was another critical mistake. The ACM would have issued a monetary sanction if it could, but it did not solely because there was no request from the opposing party.
Every lawyer at this point must be aware of the pitfalls of using AI. But that is not my most important takeaway from the Mezu opinion. Instead, I think the key lesson is in the shortcuts taken by the attorney. He didn’t have a Westlaw or Lexis subscription; he doesn’t routinely read cases; and he relied too heavily on a non-lawyer to write a brief.
These were conscious choices by the attorney. We don’t know why he made them, but one thing we do know is that these are the kinds of choices that often result in an AGC referral. My thought is to slow down, review your processes, and choose to make a better decision.
Craig Brodsky is a partner with Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann LLP in Baltimore. For over 25 years, he has represented attorneys in disciplinary cases and legal malpractice cases, and he has served as ethics counsel to numerous clients. His Legal Ethics column appears monthly in The Daily Record. He can be reached at csb@gdldlaw.com.
This article originally appeared in The Daily Record on November 6, 2025.
Goodell DeVries defends various professionals in Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Virginia, including lawyers and law firms. Many of these cases are ethics matters involving Bar Counsel. If you have questions about the above or are a Maryland lawyer facing discipline, please contact us at EthicsHelp@gdldlaw.com.
