The New Mexico Supreme Court held defense attorney Stephen Aarons in contempt and fined him $5,000 after he submitted an appeal brief containing fabricated witness and police testimony generated by ChatGPT. Aarons, representing murder convict Oscar Renee Sandoval, admitted he failed to verify the AI-generated content. Justices strongly rebuked Aarons for his lack of client communication and professional diligence, emphasizing that lawyers must verify all filings regardless of the tools used.
ChatGPT fabricated witness testimony
- ▪The fabricated testimony in Stephen Aarons' brief included fake statements from made-up police officers Michelle Amarillo and Officer Sanchez, as well as fabricated witnesses Manal Al-Jibury and Teresa Marquez
- ▪The New Mexico Supreme Court held defense attorney Stephen Aarons in direct contempt of court for submitting an appeal brief containing false testimony from wholly fabricated witnesses
- ▪Stephen Aarons admitted to generating the false testimony by feeding a computer-generated trial transcript and other case materials into OpenAI's ChatGPT, expecting a bulletproof summary
Attorney failed verification duties
- ▪Stephen Aarons did not inform his client, Oscar Renee Sandoval, or Sandoval's family that he had used ChatGPT or that the brief contained multiple factual and legal misrepresentations
- ▪Stephen Aarons admitted to the New Mexico Supreme Court that he did not verify the factual claims or legal authority in his AI-generated brief before signing and filing it
Court contempt fine imposed
- ▪The New Mexico Supreme Court fined Stephen Aarons $5,000, to be paid to the State Bar of New Mexico Client Protection Fund, and referred him to an attorney disciplinary board
- ▪The New Mexico Supreme Court barred Stephen Aarons from appearing before the court pending the outcome of the disciplinary board investigation, struck his briefs, and ordered a public defender to represent Oscar Renee Sandoval
Judicial awareness of hallucination
- ▪Chief Justice Julie Vargas and Justice Michael Vigil emphasized that lawyers must verify the accuracy of their filings regardless of whether they use AI, law students, or other attorneys
- ▪Justice C. Shannon Bacon criticized Stephen Aarons during an August 21, 2026 hearing, stating that the risks of AI hallucinations are widely known and that Aarons had violated multiple code of conduct provisions
Growing AI lawyer sanctions
- ▪Prior AI-related legal sanctions include a judge penalizing two law firms for submitting false citations, and MyPillow's Mike Lindell's lawyers being fined for submitting fake AI citations in a brief
- ▪The sanction against Stephen Aarons is part of a growing trend where state and federal judges have disciplined lawyers for submitting unverified, AI-generated court documents
Debatable claims
- ▪Lawyers should be prohibited from using generative AI to summarize trial transcripts
- ▪Courts should require lawyers to certify their use of generative AI
Story comments
Loading comments…