New Mexico's highest court fined attorney Stephen Aarons $5,000 and held him in contempt for submitting a court brief containing fabricated police testimony and witnesses generated by OpenAI's ChatGPT. The court stated Aarons failed to verify the accuracy of the filing, which included fictional statements about a murder suspect's attire.
The case highlights the risks of lawyers relying on AI tools like ChatGPT without thorough verification, potentially leading to the submission of false information in legal proceedings and jeopardizing client appeals.
The New Mexico Supreme Court has fined attorney Stephen Aarons $5,000 and held him in contempt for submitting a court brief that contained fabricated police testimony and witnesses generated by OpenAI's ChatGPT. Aarons was appealing the murder conviction of Oscar Renee Sandoval.
The court stated that the filing "contained false testimony from wholly fabricated witnesses" and that Aarons had "demonstrated a lack of remorse and a lack of concern for his client." The justices also said they will refer Aarons to an attorney disciplinary board for investigation.
Aarons said in a statement that he used ChatGPT to summarize trial proceedings and did not understand the extent to which AI could "hallucinate" facts. He expressed remorse and called it an "honest mistake" for professionals relying on the technology.
This case is one of several instances where judges have disciplined lawyers for using AI-generated court documents without proper verification. While many cases involve made-up case citations, Aarons' filing appears to be a more significant instance of fabricating witness testimony in a criminal appeal. The court had ordered Aarons to explain the inclusion of fictional statements, such as the shooter wearing dark pants and a white shirt, in his primary brief.