ChatGPT-using lawyer punished for citing fake testimony from made-up witnesses

“You buried your head in the sand”

“I didn’t know that AI could hallucinate facts,” New Mexico defense lawyer says.

The New Mexico Supreme Court held a ChatGPT-using lawyer in direct contempt of court for submitting a brief with “false testimony from wholly fabricated witnesses,” including fake police testimony and other mistakes. The state’s top court referred the lawyer to a disciplinary board for further proceedings and concluded that he “demonstrated a lack of remorse and a lack of concern for his client.”

Attorney Stephen Aarons “admitted to the Court that he did not verify the factual claims and legal authority in his AI-generated brief before signing it and filing it with the Court, and that he did not inform his client of this failure or that the brief in chief contained multiple factual and legal misrepresentations,” the state Supreme Court said in an order on Wednesday.

Aarons has been a criminal defense lawyer in New Mexico for over 40 years and was hired by a defendant’s family members to appeal a murder conviction. Aaron’s now-former client, Oscar Renee Sandoval, was sentenced to life in prison in February 2025 after being convicted of killing Shiereen Al-Jibury, who was his partner and the mother of his children.

A little over a year ago, in August 2025, Aarons submitted the brief containing fake testimony and other errors. Weeks later, the state of New Mexico filed a motion to strike portions of that brief.

“Respondent admitted to the Court that the brief in chief contained false testimony from wholly fabricated witnesses—Officer Michelle Amarillo, Officer Sanchez, Manal Al-Jibury, and Teresa Marquez,” the court order on Wednesday said.

Lawyer fed trial transcript into ChatGPT

Aarons further admitted submitting “false testimony from Danny Stanton that he received threats,” “false testimony from Linda Stanton about the threats her husband received,” and “false testimony from Mariah Chavez and Teresa Marquez (fabricated witness) regarding the shooter’s clothing and appearance,” according to the order, which said Aarons also “misrepresented legal authority” in citations to previous cases.

Many lawyers have been caught citing fake cases in briefs or inaccurately describing real cases. While Aarons didn’t cite fake cases, he inaccurately described real ones and cited fake testimony.

Aarons told the state Supreme Court at a hearing on August 21 that he fed a computer-generated transcript of the murder trial and other documents related to the case into ChatGPT, which outputted the fake quotes.

“It’s of little comfort to know that my stupidity is what brings us together this afternoon,” Aarons told the court. Aarons admitted his brief quoted “several witnesses who were never called at trial,” another “witness who was called but the brief got the name wrong,” and that his brief inaccurately described precedents.

Aarons indicated that he used a version of ChatGPT powered by the OpenAI o3 model, which was released earlier in 2025. “I assumed that it generated a bulletproof summary of proceedings,” he said at the hearing, explaining that he thought it would be accurate because of how widespread AI use is in the legal and medical fields.

Aarons was barred from appearing before the New Mexico Supreme Court pending the outcome of any disciplinary board investigation and proceedings. He was fined $5,000, to be paid to the State Bar of New Mexico Client Protection Fund, but more penalties could come out of the disciplinary proceedings ordered by the court.

The state Supreme Court ordered the public defender office to appoint a new lawyer for the defendant, struck all previous briefs from the record, and said the case will proceed in the court’s 2026-27 term.

Justice: “You buried your head in the sand”

Justices lambasted Aarons during last month’s hearing. They expressed surprise that Aarons didn’t know AI tools could generate false information and pointed out that attorneys must verify the accuracy of information no matter where it comes from. Whether a lawyer gets help from an AI tool, a law student, or a fellow attorney, the lawyer signing the brief must attest to its accuracy, they said.

Justice C. Shannon Bacon was particularly withering in her criticism of Aarons. She told Aarons that there are “at least eight or nine provisions in the code of conduct that you violated.” Bacon said she was “really struggling with” Aarons’ claim to be unaware of AI hallucinations, noting that her 13-year-old nephew and 75-year-old stepmother are both aware of the problem.

“So counsel, do you watch the news? Do you listen to the radio? Do you read anything about what’s going on in the world? Because the problem with lawyers relying on AI hallucinations is an above-the-fold story every single day,” she said. “So either you buried your head in the sand—and that’s a choice to do that, an intentional choice to be uninformed—or you took a gamble, and neither of those are consistent with the code of conduct.”

Aarons responded that he submitted the brief a year ago and “a lot has come out in the last year.” However, the problem of lawyers using AI in briefs that cite made-up cases has been in the news regularly for well over three years.

Aarons added that the cases he cited in his brief were not fake, although his brief described them inaccurately. Bacon responded that there’s no “material distinction” between inaccurately describing a real case and citing a fake one, as the rules about candor to the court apply “with equal force” either way.

“I didn’t know that AI could hallucinate facts”

Aarons provided a statement when contacted by Ars today. He said:

In March 2025 I agreed to handle an appeal and used ChatGPT to summarize the trial proceedings. I wrote the brief but the table of contents and the summary contained numerous errors. At the time, I didn’t know that AI could hallucinate facts not only in my brief but in pleadings submitted by other attorneys. I am glad the court threw out my defective pleading and ordered the public defender to write a new brief on behalf of my former client. As for myself, I am remorseful but hopeful that the disciplinary board takes into account it was an honest mistake. It is a lesson learned for all professionals who rely upon this powerful but sometimes unstable technology.