Maryland.
Attorney AI ethics guidance status for Maryland as of May 9, 2026. No formal AI-specific opinion as of May 2026.
Maryland bar AI ethics status. #
The Maryland State Bar Association has not issued a formal AI-specific opinion. ABA Op. 512 applies as persuasive authority.
Authoritative source: https://www.msba.org/
Last verified: . If this row text disagrees with the linked source, the source controls.
What this means in practice. #
For practitioners admitted in Maryland, the absence of a formal Maryland-specific AI opinion does not mean AI use is unregulated. ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024) is treated as persuasive authority by Maryland as it is in other no-formal-opinion states. The recurring duties under the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct apply to AI use the same way they apply to any other technology: competence (Rule 1.1), confidentiality (Rule 1.6), supervision (Rule 5.3), and candor to the tribunal (Rule 3.3).
Practitioners should treat ABA Op. 512 as the operating reference until Maryland-specific guidance issues. Monitor the source link above for updates.
Comparison to ABA Op. 512. #
No state-level opinion exists to compare against ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024). ABA Op. 512 governs as persuasive authority in Maryland, applied through the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct (which mirror the ABA Model Rules). The recurring duties imported are: competence (Rule 1.1, including technological competence), communication (Rule 1.4), reasonable fees (Rule 1.5), confidentiality (Rule 1.6), candor toward the tribunal (Rule 3.3), and supervision (Rules 5.1 / 5.3). Practitioners should treat ABA Op. 512 as the operating reference until Maryland-specific guidance issues.
Federal court AI standing orders affecting Maryland practitioners. #
No widely-noted court-wide or individual-judge AI standing orders affecting Maryland's federal districts have surfaced as of May 2026. Individual judges may have issued orders that are not in our representative list. Practitioners should consult each assigned judge's standing orders before filing in any federal matter. The comprehensive corpus of federal-judge AI orders is maintained by Bloomberg Law and Law360 (both paywalled).
Last verified: . The comprehensive corpus of federal-judge AI orders is maintained by Bloomberg Law and Law360.
AI case-law context for Maryland. #
Maryland sits within the 4th Circuit (United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit). Decisions of the 4th Circuit are binding on the federal courts within Maryland; state-court decisions of the Maryland appellate system bind Maryland's state courts; Supreme Court decisions are binding on everyone. The Supreme Court has not yet issued a decision directly addressing attorney AI use, so the controlling case law is at the circuit and district levels:
2024 — one of the few federal districts with a court-wide (not individual-judge) standing order on AI. Requires certification with every brief that AI was not used or that AI use was disclosed and verified.
Mata v. Avianca, Park v. Kim, and Heppner are routinely cited as persuasive authority in 4th Circuit federal courts. No 4th Circuit appellate decision has yet directly addressed AI use in legal practice.
Practitioners in Maryland should treat the cases above as the operating framework for AI-related conduct until Maryland-specific binding precedent or Maryland bar guidance controls a particular question. The verification duty under Mata and Park v. Kim has been routinely cited in sanctions matters across all federal circuits including the 4th Circuit.
Maryland legal landscape. #
The Maryland State Bar Association is voluntary; the Maryland Court of Appeals (renamed Supreme Court of Maryland in 2022) regulates the bar through the Attorney Grievance Commission. Notable: Maryland's appellate court was renamed in 2022 as part of a broader court-naming reform.
Most US states have adopted the substance of ABA Model Rule 1.1, Comment 8 — that the duty of competence requires lawyers to keep abreast of the benefits and risks of relevant technology. Whether Maryland has adopted Comment 8 verbatim, in modified form, or relies on the underlying Rule 1.1 text alone, the substantive duty of technological competence applies to AI-related practice in Maryland.
For multi-state practitioners admitted in Maryland alongside other jurisdictions, the absence of a Maryland-specific opinion means the most-restrictive applicable rule from any admission jurisdiction controls AI-related conduct in the matter. Where ABA Op. 512 conflicts with another state's rule, the lawyer must reconcile the duties under both regimes.
When might Maryland issue formal AI guidance? #
Forecast signal: unclear — no announced project.
Large-bar states like Maryland tend to track ABA Op. 512 closely. The Maryland ethics committee has not publicly issued AI-specific guidance as of May 2026, which is unusual given the bar size. The most plausible explanation is that the committee considers ABA Op. 512 sufficient to govern in Maryland and sees no immediate need for a state-specific opinion. A Maryland-specific opinion would most likely be triggered by a specific AI-related sanctions case in Maryland federal or state court that exposes a gap between ABA Op. 512 and Maryland practice expectations.
What practitioners can watch for, in roughly the order in which they would appear: (1) committee announcement on the Maryland bar website that an AI ethics opinion is under consideration; (2) draft circulated for comment (public comment period typically 30–60 days); (3) final approved opinion published in the bar's ethics-opinions index. The transitions from (1) to (3) typically span 4–8 months in active jurisdictions, longer in less active ones.
Until then, practitioners should default to ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024) as the persuasive operating framework, supplemented by the controlling case-law in §05 above and the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct as applied to technology use generally.
Maryland-specific FAQ.
Has the Maryland bar issued formal AI ethics guidance?
No. As of May 2026, no formal AI-specific opinion has been issued by the Maryland bar. ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024) governs as persuasive authority. The Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct (competence, confidentiality, supervision, candor) apply to AI-related practice the same way they apply to any other technology.
Which federal district covers Maryland?
Maryland has one federal district: District of Maryland (D. Md.). AI-specific standing orders are typically issued at the individual-judge level rather than court-wide. Practitioners should consult each assigned judge's standing orders before filing.
How is attorney admission and discipline handled in Maryland?
Maryland has a voluntary bar association alongside a separate mandatory licensing and discipline regulator directly under the Supreme Court of Maryland. AI-related disciplinary matters proceed through the disciplinary regulator, which operates with the court's plenary authority. Voluntary-bar opinions and reports are persuasive but not directly binding; the Supreme Court of Maryland's rules govern.
How should a Maryland attorney comply with AI-related ethics rules absent a Maryland-specific opinion?
Treat ABA Formal Opinion 512 as the operating reference. Apply the standard duties under the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct: competence (Rule 1.1), confidentiality (Rule 1.6), supervision (Rule 5.3), candor toward the tribunal (Rule 3.3), and reasonableness of fees (Rule 1.5). Verify all AI-generated content before submission. Use closed-loop AI tools (not public consumer-grade) for any matter involving client information.
Does AI vendor diligence apply in Maryland?
Yes. The supervisory duty under Maryland's analog to Rule 5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistance) applies to AI vendor relationships. North Carolina's 2024 FEO 1 frames AI vendors explicitly under Rule 5.3, and that framing has been treated as persuasive in other jurisdictions including Maryland. Vendor diligence — privacy-policy review, data-retention terms, training-on-customer-data clauses — is a precondition to selecting an AI tool for client work.