Overview
- The court said Hyman’s divorce-appeal brief contained 11 faulty citations—four nonexistent, five unsupported, and two miscitations.
- Judges concluded he failed to provide competent representation because he did not read the cited authorities and remains responsible for his clerk’s work.
- Judge Kathryn Grill Graeff referred him on Oct. 29 to the Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission, with no further discipline reported so far.
- The opinion warns some generative models hallucinate legal authorities roughly 30–50% of the time, marking the appellate court’s first direct treatment of the problem.
- The case aligns with a broader rise in sanctions over AI citation errors, including a May incident involving attorney Matthew Reeves, as experts urge stronger verification and court-backed citation safeguards.