A New Mexico appellate court has imposed sanctions on defense attorney Stephen Aarons after he submitted a legal brief containing fictional police testimony and witnesses fabricated by OpenAI’s ChatGPT. The state Supreme Court held Aarons in contempt and fined him $5,000 for failing to verify the accuracy of the filing.
The court issued its ruling on Wednesday, stating that the brief included “false testimony from wholly fabricated witnesses.” Judges also noted that Aarons demonstrated “a lack of remorse and a lack of concern for his client,” and referred the matter to an attorney disciplinary board for further investigation.
Aarons, who practices in Santa Fe, represented Oscar Renee Sandoval in the appeal of a murder conviction. Sandoval was sentenced to life in prison last year after being convicted of killing the mother of his children. The appeal, which remains pending, was reassigned to public defender Kim Chavez Cook on September 2.
In a statement to Reuters, Aarons explained that he had used ChatGPT to summarize trial proceedings when he agreed to take on the case. He admitted he did not fully grasp the extent to which AI tools can “hallucinate” or invent facts. “I am remorseful but hopeful that the disciplinary board takes into account it was an honest mistake,” he said, calling it “a lesson learned for all professionals who rely upon this powerful but sometimes unstable technology.” OpenAI declined to comment immediately.
The incident highlights a growing trend of judicial pushback against the uncritical use of artificial intelligence in legal proceedings. Dozens of lawyers have previously faced sanctions for submitting briefs containing AI-invented case citations or misquoted laws. However, this case appears to be more severe, involving fabricated witness accounts in a criminal appeal rather than merely incorrect legal references.
During an August 21 hearing, Aarons told justices he fed a computer-generated transcript and other case materials into ChatGPT, assuming it would produce a “bulletproof summary.” The court pointed out that the fabricated material included specific details, such as fictional statements that the shooter was wearing dark pants and a white shirt.
Justice C. Shannon Bacon expressed disbelief at Aarons’s claim that he was unaware of AI’s propensity for errors. “Counsel, do you watch the news? Do you listen to the radio? Do you read anything about what’s going on in the world?” Bacon asked. “Because the problem with lawyers relying on AI hallucinations is an above-the-fold story every single day.”
Leave a Reply