Skip to main content
  1. AI Legal Ethics by State/
  2. State AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys/

Maryland AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

Table of Contents

Maryland has taken a measured and thoughtful approach to regulating attorney use of artificial intelligence, applying its well-established Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (MARPC) to emerging AI technologies. The state’s legal community, led by the Maryland State Bar Association and the Supreme Court of Maryland (formerly Court of Appeals), emphasizes that existing ethical obligations fully govern AI use while recognizing the need for practical guidance.


Maryland Regulatory Overview
#

Supreme Court of Maryland
#

The Supreme Court of Maryland (renamed from Court of Appeals in 2022) has ultimate authority over attorney regulation, including the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct. The Court oversees attorney discipline through the Attorney Grievance Commission.

Key Contacts:

  • Website: mdcourts.gov
  • Attorney Grievance Commission: (410) 514-7051

Maryland State Bar Association
#

The Maryland State Bar Association (MSBA) is a voluntary professional organization providing ethics guidance, CLE, and resources for Maryland attorneys.

Key Contacts:

  • Website: msba.org
  • Ethics Hotline: (410) 685-7878
  • Address: 520 W. Fayette Street, Baltimore, MD 21201

Attorney Grievance Commission
#

The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland investigates complaints and prosecutes attorney discipline matters.


AI Ethics Guidance Status
#

Current Position
#

Maryland addresses AI through its existing MARPC framework:

  • MARPC applies fully to AI use without modification
  • Technology competence is integral to competence requirements
  • Client protection remains paramount
  • Practical guidance available through MSBA resources

MSBA Initiatives
#

The Maryland State Bar Association has addressed AI through:

  • CLE programs on AI ethics and practice implications
  • Committee work on technology and practice management
  • Ethics resources addressing technology questions
  • Member communications on emerging AI issues

Standing Committee on Ethics
#

The MSBA’s Standing Committee on Ethics issues opinions interpreting MARPC, providing guidance applicable to AI use in legal practice.


Core Ethical Obligations
#

Confidentiality (MARPC 19-301.6)
#

Critical Requirement
Maryland’s Rule 19-301.6 requires attorneys to take reasonable measures to prevent unauthorized disclosure of client information when using AI systems.

Maryland’s confidentiality rule establishes comprehensive protections:

Scope of Duty:

  • Protects all information relating to representation
  • Applies regardless of source or form
  • Extends to prospective and former clients

AI-Specific Obligations:

  • Assess AI platforms for adequate security measures
  • Review Terms of Service and data practices
  • Verify AI providers don’t use client data for training
  • Consider enhanced protections for sensitive matters

Comment [18] - Acting Competently: Maryland’s comment requires attorneys to:

“Act competently to safeguard information relating to the representation of a client against unauthorized access by third parties and against inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure.”

Reasonable Measures Include:

  • Understanding how AI processes and stores data
  • Implementing appropriate access controls
  • Using enterprise AI solutions when appropriate
  • Training staff on confidentiality requirements

Competence (MARPC 19-301.1)
#

Maryland’s competence rule requires:

Knowledge and Skill:

  • Understanding the benefits and risks of AI tools
  • Recognizing AI capabilities and limitations
  • Knowing when AI use is appropriate for specific tasks

Comment [8] - Maintaining Competence: Maryland has adopted the technology competence comment:

“To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, an attorney should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.”

Verification Requirements:

  • Independently verify all AI-generated citations
  • Confirm accuracy of legal propositions
  • Check quoted language against original sources
  • Use authoritative databases for verification

Supervision (MARPC 19-305.1 and 19-305.3)
#

Maryland’s supervision rules create accountability:

Supervisory Lawyers (Rule 19-305.1):

  • Establish firm-wide AI policies and procedures
  • Ensure adequate training on AI tools
  • Create verification checkpoints for AI work
  • Monitor compliance with AI guidelines

Nonlawyer Assistants (Rule 19-305.3):

  • AI systems should be supervised as nonlawyer assistants
  • Attorneys remain responsible for AI outputs
  • Implement quality control measures
  • Ensure staff understands confidentiality obligations

Candor to the Tribunal (MARPC 19-303.3)
#

Verification Before Filing
Maryland attorneys must verify all AI-generated content before court submission. Submitting fabricated citations violates Rule 19-303.3 and may result in sanctions and disciplinary action.

Maryland’s candor rule prohibits:

  • Making false statements of fact or law
  • Failing to correct false statements previously made
  • Offering evidence known to be false

AI Application:

  • AI hallucinations constitute false statements if submitted
  • No defense based on AI reliance
  • Attorneys bear full responsibility for filed content

Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct Implicated
#

RuleObligationAI Application
19-301.1CompetenceUnderstand AI; verify all outputs
19-301.2Scope of RepresentationClient authority over AI decisions
19-301.4CommunicationInform clients of material AI use
19-301.5FeesReasonable fees; appropriate billing
19-301.6ConfidentialityProtect client data in AI
19-303.3Candor to TribunalVerify before court submission
19-305.1Supervisory DutiesEstablish AI policies
19-305.3Nonlawyer AssistanceSupervise AI appropriately
19-308.4MisconductAI misuse may be misconduct

Maryland Court Developments
#

U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
#

Federal courts in Maryland have addressed AI:

Potential Requirements:

  • Monitor standing orders for AI mandates
  • Some judges may require certification of verification
  • Check local rules for AI-specific requirements

Maryland State Courts
#

State courts are monitoring AI developments:

  • Circuit courts may adopt AI guidance
  • Potential for statewide rules on AI use
  • Courts have sanctions authority for fabricated content
  • Emphasis on attorney responsibility

Administrative Proceedings
#

Attorneys appearing before Maryland administrative agencies should:

  • Apply same ethics standards as court proceedings
  • Verify AI content before agency submission
  • Maintain professional standards in all forums

Billing Considerations
#

Fee Reasonableness Under MARPC 19-301.5
#

Maryland’s fee rule requires reasonableness:

Factors for Reasonableness:

  • Time and labor required
  • Novelty and difficulty of questions
  • Skill requisite for proper performance
  • Customary fees in the locality

Appropriate AI Billing:

  • Time spent crafting prompts and inputs
  • Time spent reviewing and verifying outputs
  • Time spent editing and refining content
  • Actual time invested in work

Inappropriate Billing:

  • Billing for time saved by AI
  • Charging pre-AI rates for accelerated work
  • Billing unverified outputs as final work

Client Communication on Fees
#

  • Discuss AI billing impact upfront
  • Consider value-based arrangements
  • Provide transparent billing statements

Communication and Consent#

Client Communication (MARPC 19-301.4)
#

Maryland’s communication rule requires keeping clients informed:

Disclosure Considerations:

  • Disclose when AI materially affects representation
  • Inform clients if confidential data enters AI systems
  • Communicate when AI affects fees
  • Respond to client inquiries about AI

Engagement Letter Provisions: Address:

  • Scope of AI use in representation
  • Types of AI tools employed
  • Confidentiality protections implemented
  • Verification procedures used
  • Fee implications of AI

Informed Consent#

Obtain consent when appropriate for:

  • Input of confidential information to AI
  • Use of AI for substantive work
  • Specific platforms with particular data practices

Practical Compliance Steps for Maryland Attorneys
#

Maryland AI Compliance Checklist

Before Using AI:

  1. Review AI platform Terms of Service and privacy policies
  2. Assess security measures and certifications
  3. Verify data handling, retention, and training policies
  4. Establish firm-wide AI use policies
  5. Determine client consent or disclosure needs

During AI Use: 6. Avoid inputting highly confidential information without safeguards 7. Use enterprise AI solutions for sensitive matters 8. Maintain records of prompts and outputs 9. Exercise independent professional judgment

After AI Generates Content: 10. Verify all citations using Westlaw or Lexis 11. Confirm quoted language against original sources 12. Shepardize or KeyCite all cited authority 13. Review for accuracy and logical consistency 14. Document your verification process

For Court Submissions: 15. Check local rules and standing orders 16. Comply with any certification requirements 17. Maintain verification records

For Billing: 18. Bill only for actual time spent 19. Communicate AI billing practices to clients 20. Adjust estimates for AI efficiency

For Supervision: 21. Train all attorneys and staff 22. Require verification before filing 23. Conduct periodic compliance audits


Maryland-Specific Practice Considerations
#

Federal Government Practice
#

Many Maryland attorneys practice before federal agencies:

Special Considerations:

  • Agency-specific AI policies may apply
  • Security clearance matters require extra caution
  • Federal contracting rules may address AI
  • Apply heightened confidentiality standards

Proximity to D.C.
#

Maryland attorneys often practice in Washington, D.C.:

Multi-Jurisdictional Considerations:

  • Know D.C. ethics rules on AI as well
  • Understand which rules apply to specific matters
  • Maintain compliance in both jurisdictions

Maryland Legal Services Programs#

For attorneys providing legal aid:

  • AI may enhance access to justice
  • Same ethics rules apply to pro bono work
  • Consider client vulnerability in AI decisions
  • Maintain quality standards regardless of fee

Malpractice and Insurance Considerations
#

Professional Liability Coverage
#

Maryland attorneys should evaluate coverage:

Key Questions:

  • Does policy cover AI-related errors?
  • Any exclusions for technology claims?
  • Required disclosure of AI use?
  • Premium implications of AI adoption?

Documentation for Defense:

  • Maintain verification procedure records
  • Document AI policies and training
  • Keep evidence of quality control

Cyber Liability
#

Consider coverage for:

  • Data breaches involving AI platforms
  • Third-party vendor failures
  • Client data exposure incidents

Frequently Asked Questions
#

Does Maryland require disclosure of AI use to clients?

Maryland doesn’t mandate automatic AI disclosure, but MARPC 19-301.4 requires communication sufficient for informed decisions. Disclose when AI materially affects representation, when confidential information will be inputted, when AI impacts fees, or when clients ask. Best practice is addressing AI use in engagement letters and being transparent about your practices.

Can I use ChatGPT for legal research in Maryland?

Yes, but with verification requirements. Under MARPC 19-301.1, attorneys must competently use technology, including understanding AI limitations. All AI-generated citations, quotes, and legal propositions must be independently verified using authoritative sources like Westlaw or Lexis. Maryland’s technology competence requirement means understanding that AI can produce hallucinations.

What confidentiality protections are required for AI use in Maryland?

Under MARPC 19-301.6, Maryland attorneys must take reasonable measures to prevent unauthorized disclosure of client information. This includes assessing AI platform security, reviewing Terms of Service, verifying data handling practices, and implementing appropriate safeguards. For sensitive matters, consider enterprise AI solutions with enhanced privacy protections.

How should Maryland attorneys supervise AI use?

Under MARPC 19-305.1 and 19-305.3, supervisory attorneys must establish firm-wide AI policies, provide training, create verification checkpoints, and monitor compliance. AI should be supervised like a nonlawyer assistant, attorneys remain responsible for all AI outputs used in client matters. Document supervision procedures for malpractice defense.

What happens if I submit fabricated AI citations in Maryland courts?

Submitting fabricated citations violates MARPC 19-303.3 (Candor to the Tribunal) and may result in court sanctions, disciplinary proceedings, and malpractice liability. Maryland attorneys are responsible for verifying all content before court submission. Reliance on AI is not a defense, attorneys bear full responsibility for everything filed.

How should I bill for AI-assisted work in Maryland?

Under MARPC 19-301.5, fees must be reasonable. Bill for actual time spent on prompts, review, verification, and editing. Do not bill for time saved by AI efficiency, if AI reduces a 2-hour task to 20 minutes, bill 20 minutes. Communicate AI billing practices to clients at engagement and consider alternative fee arrangements.

Resources
#


Questions About AI Ethics Compliance in Maryland?

Maryland's application of MARPC to AI use provides a clear framework for attorneys seeking to leverage AI responsibly. Understanding your obligations under the Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional Conduct is essential for compliant AI integration in your practice.

Consult a Legal Ethics Attorney

Related

Minnesota AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

Minnesota has established itself as a practical and progressive jurisdiction for addressing attorney use of artificial intelligence, with the Minnesota Supreme Court and Minnesota State Bar Association providing clear guidance through application of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC). The state’s legal community emphasizes responsible innovation while maintaining rigorous ethical standards.

Alabama AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

Alabama attorneys are increasingly incorporating artificial intelligence into their legal practices, from contract review to legal research. While the Alabama State Bar has not yet issued comprehensive AI-specific guidance, the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct establish clear ethical boundaries that govern all technology use, including generative AI tools like ChatGPT, Claude, and Copilot.

Arizona AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

Arizona has positioned itself as a national leader in legal innovation, becoming the first state to eliminate the prohibition on nonlawyer ownership of law firms and establishing a regulatory sandbox for legal technology companies. This forward-thinking approach extends to AI regulation, where Arizona balances innovation with robust client protections through its adaptation of existing ethics rules to emerging technologies.

Colorado AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

Colorado has emerged as a thoughtful leader in addressing attorney use of artificial intelligence, with both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Colorado Bar Association providing guidance on ethical AI integration in legal practice. The state’s approach emphasizes practical compliance while maintaining flexibility for attorneys to leverage AI’s benefits responsibly.

Connecticut AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

Connecticut has taken a measured approach to artificial intelligence regulation in legal practice, focusing on applying existing Rules of Professional Conduct to AI technologies while the state bar monitors developments. The Connecticut Bar Association and state courts have emphasized that attorneys bear ultimate responsibility for any AI-generated work product, regardless of the technology’s sophistication.

Delaware AI Ethics Rules for Attorneys

Delaware may be geographically small, but its outsized influence on American corporate law makes it a critical jurisdiction for AI ethics guidance. Home to the renowned Court of Chancery and the incorporation domicile for over 65% of Fortune 500 companies, Delaware attorneys practicing corporate, business, and chancery law must apply the highest standards when using artificial intelligence tools. The Delaware State Bar Association and the state’s courts have emphasized that attorneys remain fully responsible for AI-generated work product.