New Mexico Supreme Court Fines Lawyer for AI-Fabricated Witness Testimony
Attorney Stephen Aarons was held in contempt after using ChatGPT to generate fake police and witness statements in a murder appeal.
The New Mexico Supreme Court has held attorney Stephen Aarons in direct contempt and imposed a $5,000 fine after he submitted an appellate brief containing fabricated testimony. The court found that Aarons used ChatGPT to generate fictional witness and police statements in a high-stakes criminal case.
The sanctions stem from Aarons' work on the murder appeal of Oscar Renee Sandoval, who is currently serving a life sentence in prison. According to court records, the brief submitted by Aarons included false testimony from entirely fabricated witnesses as well as fake police testimony. The court subsequently referred Aarons to a disciplinary board, citing a lack of remorse and a failure to protect the interests of his client. On September 2, the case was reassigned to public defender Kim Chavez Cook.
A Shift in AI Hallucinations
This incident follows a growing trend of legal professionals facing sanctions for "AI hallucinations," a phenomenon where large language models invent plausible-sounding but entirely fake case law or citations. However, legal analysts note that this case represents a dangerous escalation. While previous sanctions typically involved the fabrication of legal precedents, Aarons' submission invented factual evidence and witness testimony within a criminal proceeding.
During the proceedings, Justice C. Shannon Bacon questioned Aarons' awareness of the risks associated with generative AI. "Counsel, do you watch the news? Do you listen to the radio? Do you read anything about what's going on in the world?" Justice Bacon asked, noting that the issue of lawyers relying on AI hallucinations is a frequent headline. In his defense, Aarons claimed he was unaware that AI could hallucinate facts, later stating he was remorseful and hoped the disciplinary board would view the incident as an honest mistake.
Implications for the Legal System
The case underscores the judiciary's zero-tolerance approach to the failure of "human-in-the-loop" verification. In the legal profession, the responsibility for the accuracy of a filing rests solely with the signing attorney, regardless of the tools used to draft it. The fabrication of evidence in a murder appeal is particularly severe, as it threatens the integrity of the judicial process and puts a defendant's liberty at risk.
What's Next
As the disciplinary board reviews Aarons' conduct, the legal community continues to grapple with the integration of generative AI. The outcome of this disciplinary process may serve as a benchmark for how courts handle the transition from fake citations to the fabrication of factual evidence. For now, the focus remains on the appeal of Oscar Renee Sandoval under new counsel.