ChatGPT-Using Lawyer Punished by New Mexico Supreme Court for Fabricated Witness Testimony

The New Mexico Supreme Court has taken a significant disciplinary action against attorney Stephen Aarons, holding him in direct contempt of court for submitting a legal brief that contained "false testimony from wholly fabricated witnesses." This landmark decision, issued on Wednesday, underscores the critical need for legal professionals to exercise due diligence when employing artificial intelligence tools in their practice. The court's order specifically detailed that the brief, which Aarons filed, included fabricated police testimony and a host of other inaccuracies. Consequently, the state's highest court has referred Aarons to a disciplinary board for further proceedings, indicating a serious breach of professional conduct. The Supreme Court's ruling also noted that Aarons "demonstrated a lack of remorse and a lack of concern for his client," further complicating his position.

Stephen Aarons, a criminal defense lawyer with over four decades of experience in New Mexico, admitted to the Court that he failed to verify the factual claims and legal authority presented in his AI-generated brief before signing and filing it. This admission is particularly concerning as it also includes his acknowledgment that he did not inform his client of this critical oversight, nor did he disclose that the brief contained multiple factual and legal misrepresentations. Aarons had been retained by the family of Oscar Renee Sandoval, a defendant appealing a murder conviction. Sandoval was sentenced to life imprisonment in February 2025, having been convicted of the murder of Shiereen Al-Jibury, who was his partner and the mother of his children. This case arises in the context of rapidly evolving legal technology, where AI tools like ChatGPT are increasingly being explored for their potential to assist in legal research and document drafting. However, as this incident starkly illustrates, the responsibility for the accuracy and veracity of all submitted legal arguments ultimately rests with the attorney. The disciplinary board will now undertake a thorough review of Aarons' conduct to determine appropriate sanctions, which could range from fines to suspension or even disbarment. This event serves as a potent cautionary tale for the legal profession, emphasizing that while AI can be a powerful assistant, human oversight, ethical responsibility, and rigorous verification remain paramount in the administration of justice.