Washington County’s Outside Counsel Accused of Using AI to Misrepresent Case Law, Raising Concerns Over Legal Accuracy

In yet another unexpected twist in the case of Shaun Porter and Justin Holder versus the Washington County Government, artificial intelligence and potentially inaccurate case law citations have now been entered into the record to challenge a motion to strike. Holder, in his ongoing lawsuit against the Washington County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) has accused the county’s outside legal counsel of using artificial intelligence to draft court filings, alleging that this has resulted in false or misleading citations to Maryland law and a potential misuse of public funds.

Justin K. Holder, who is representing himself in a civil case against the BOCC, filed a formal objection on June 10, 2025, alleging that Sarah Spitalnick, an attorney hired by the county as outside counsel for this litigation, used an AI tool known as “Grok AI” to generate legal citations. Grok is the AI similar to ChatGPT developed by Elon Musk and X (Formerly Twitter). Holder claims that multiple case citations submitted by Spitalnick in a May 21, 2025 motion to strike were either misquoted or unrelated to the points they were meant to support.

The motion in question seeks to strike a supplemental opposition brief filed by the plaintiffs, arguing that it violated court procedures and failed to present new, relevant information. Holder responded by comparing the county’s cited cases to the original legal texts and asserting that the legal references do not align with the claims made. He argues this supports his belief that AI-generated content was used improperly and without adequate review.

Holder identifies four specific legal citations that he believes were generated by artificial intelligence—specifically, by Grok AI—and inaccurately presented to the court by Spitalnick on behalf of the Washington County Board of County Commissioners.

Holder asserts that the following citations are either fabricated, misrepresented, or not aligned with the propositions for which they were cited:

1. Uninsured Employers’ Fund v. Danner, 388 Md. 649, 659 n.8, 882 A.2d 271, 277 (2005):
   The BOCC cited this case for the proposition that “additional filings beyond the initial motion, opposition, and reply require court approval.” Holder claims the cited page and footnote contain no such language or legal conclusion and instead discuss unrelated issues about the Workers’ Compensation Act.
2. Bacon v. Arey, 203 Md. App. 606, 667, 40 A.3d 435, 471 (2012):
   The BOCC cited this case as affirming a trial court’s discretion to disregard unauthorized sur-replies. Holder disputes this, asserting that page 471 deals with a surveyor’s duty of care and says nothing about sur-replies or motion practice.
3. Frederick Rd. Ltd. P’ship v. Brown & Sturm, 360 Md. 76, 94, 756 A.2d 963, 973 (2000):
   The county used this citation to suggest that courts may strike filings that do not advance case resolution. Holder contends that page 973 discusses summary judgment and statute of limitations under the discovery rule, not the striking of court filings.
4. Blum v. Blum, 59 Md. App. 584, 595, 477 A.2d 289, 294 (1984):
   The BOCC claimed this case supports the idea that courts have inherent authority to control their dockets and strike improper filings. Holder argues that this case does not contain such a discussion at the cited location.

Holder believes these inaccuracies stem from the use of AI-generated content and has asked the court to scrutinize all future legal filings from the BOCC and its counsel for accuracy. He maintains that no Maryland authority supports the claims attributed to these cases and accuses the defense of misleading the court with fictitious legal standards.

Holder also cited a June 9, 2025, video-recorded deposition in which Spitalnick allegedly had the Grok AI application open on her computer during a Zoom session. While the presence of the application alone does not confirm its use in legal drafting, Holder claims it strengthens the argument that court documents were produced using AI tools and submitted without sufficient oversight. He further alleges that billing for hours spent on filings generated with AI constitutes a misuse of taxpayer resources and has called for court sanctions and bar oversight of the attorney’s conduct.

The court has not yet ruled on Holder’s objection or the motion to strike.

Associated documents for this story are available in our Public Information Archive.

Article by Ken Buckler, based upon information from filings in the Circuit Court for Washington County, Maryland.

---