Mezu v. Mezu
Reported Opinion (2025)
Sections
Rule of Law:
Attorneys violate professional competence standards when they submit filings containing unverified, AI-generated fictitious citations, warranting referral to disciplinary bodies. Additionally, a marital settlement agreement is not substantively unconscionable merely because it assigns custody to one parent and waives support, provided the terms do not shock the conscience of the court.
Facts:
- Mother filed for divorce and her counsel drafted a Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA), advising Father to seek independent counsel.
- Father, possessing a master's degree, negotiated the terms and proposed a handwritten deal stating 'no child support, no spousal support' and 'you can keep the kids.'
- On November 15, 2024, Father signed the MSA without an attorney, agreeing that Mother would have sole custody and the home's contents, while he retained his business interests and waived support obligations.
- Following the signing, a dispute arose when Father attempted to remove items from the marital home, including children's ATVs, claiming they were personal property.
- Father subsequently sought to invalidate the property and custody provisions of the MSA.
- During the appellate process, Mother's counsel submitted a brief that was drafted with the assistance of a law clerk using ChatGPT.
- The brief contained citations to multiple fictitious cases and real cases that did not support the cited propositions, which the attorney failed to read or verify.
Procedural Posture:
- Mother filed a Complaint for Absolute Divorce in the Circuit Court for Harford County.
- Father filed a Motion to Invalidate portions of the Marital Settlement Agreement in the Circuit Court.
- The Circuit Court held a hearing and issued an order modifying the property list slightly but otherwise upholding the Agreement.
- Father filed a Motion to Vacate the Circuit Court's order.
- The Circuit Court denied Father's Motion to Vacate.
- Father appealed to the Appellate Court of Maryland.
- The Appellate Court issued a Show Cause Order to Mother's counsel regarding the fictitious citations in the brief.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney violate professional ethics rules warranting disciplinary referral by submitting a brief containing AI-generated fictitious case citations without verification? Is a Marital Settlement Agreement substantively unconscionable when one party waives child support and alimony in exchange for the other party assuming full custody?
Opinions:
Majority - Graeff
Yes, regarding the ethics violation; No, regarding the unconscionability of the agreement. Regarding the AI issue, the Court held that while AI is a valuable tool, it must be used responsibly. The attorney violated Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct 19-301.1 (competence) and 19-305.3 (supervision) by failing to verify the citations provided by his clerk. The Court emphasized that a competent attorney must read the legal authorities they cite. Because the attorney admitted he did not read the cases and relied on AI 'hallucinations,' the Court referred him to the Attorney Grievance Commission, though declined monetary sanctions as none were requested. Regarding the MSA, the Court affirmed the lower court's finding that the agreement was not substantively unconscionable. The Court reasoned that Father actively negotiated the terms to protect his financial interests (business and support waivers) in exchange for custody concessions. The agreement was not so one-sided as to 'shock the conscience,' and Father retained the right to petition for custody modification upon a material change in circumstances.
Analysis:
This case serves as a critical warning regarding the integration of Artificial Intelligence in legal practice. It establishes a clear precedent that attorneys are personally responsible for verifying AI-generated output; reliance on non-lawyer staff or AI tools is not a defense against ethical violations for submitting fictitious authority. The decision underscores that the duty of competence includes the actual reading and verification of cited case law. substantively, the case reinforces the high burden required to overturn marital settlement agreements, demonstrating that courts will enforce negotiated trade-offs between custody and financial support unless they are grossly inequitable.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Mezu v. Mezu (2025)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"