New Mexico’s Supreme Court has fined lawyer Stephen Aarons $5,000 and held him in contempt for including AI-generated false testimony in a murder appeal. The court found that Aarons’ brief contained fabricated witness accounts and misleading legal citations, according to a report from Reuters. The filing included false testimony from wholly fabricated witnesses and incorrect details about the shooter’s clothing and appearance.

During an August hearing, Justice C. Shannon Bacon questioned Aarons about his reliance on ChatGPT without understanding the risks. Bacon asked, 'Counsel, do you watch the news? Do you listen to the radio? Do you read anything about what’s going on in the world?' The justice emphasized that the issue of AI hallucinations is a daily news story, not an obscure legal matter.

Aarons, a private attorney based in Santa Fe, was handling the appeal of Oscar Renee Sandoval, who was convicted of murdering the mother of his children and sentenced to life in prison. The appeal is still pending and was assigned to Kim Chavez Cook, a New Mexico public defender, on September 2. Cook declined to comment. The district attorney’s office for Dona Ana County also declined to comment.

Aarons told the court at the August 21 hearing that he fed a computer-generated transcript and other case materials to ChatGPT, assuming it would generate a 'bulletproof summary.' He claimed he did not understand the extent to which AI could 'hallucinate' facts. In a statement to Reuters, Aarons expressed remorse, saying he hoped the disciplinary board would consider it an honest mistake. 'It is a lesson learned for all professionals who rely upon this powerful but sometimes unstable technology,' he said.

The court’s sanction is part of a growing trend of judges disciplining lawyers for using AI tools without proper verification. Last year, a judge in another case slammed two law firms for submitting a brief with 'numerous false, inaccurate, and misleading legal citations and quotations.' Lawyers for MyPillow’s Mike Lindell were also fined for including AI-generated misquotes and fake citations in a brief. OpenAI did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The state supreme court last month ordered Aarons to explain how the fabricated material, which included 'fictional statements that the shooter was wearing dark pants and a white shirt,' was included in his primary brief. The court has referred Aarons to an attorney disciplinary board for further investigation. The case highlights the risks of relying on AI without adequate oversight, particularly in legal contexts where accuracy is paramount.

What remains unknown is the full extent of the fabricated testimony and how it may have influenced the appeal. The court has not yet determined whether the false information affected the legal proceedings or the outcome of the case. The disciplinary board’s findings and any potential sanctions beyond the $5,000 fine are also not yet disclosed. As the legal system grapples with the implications of AI in courtrooms, the case serves as a cautionary example of the dangers of over-reliance on unverified technology.