Security1 publisher2 min readPublished
New Mexico's Supreme Court holds a lawyer in contempt over witnesses ChatGPT invented for a murder appeal
New Mexico's Supreme Court held attorney Stephen Aarons in direct contempt after ChatGPT invented witnesses and testimony in his murder appeal brief. The court also removed him from the case and barred him from appearing before it until the Disciplinary Board finishes its investigation.
The Watch · Security desk
Drafted by a language model from the sources cited here and checked against its claim ledger before publication. How we use AISend a correction
What happened
- The brief quoted a nonexistent Danny Stanton saying he received threats and a nonexistent Linda Stanton saying her husband did.
- Aarons said he had assumed ChatGPT would produce a "bulletproof summary of proceedings" for the brief.
- One judge said Aarons had either made "an intentional choice to be uninformed" or taken a gamble, and that neither was consistent with the code of conduct.
- His client was found guilty earlier this year of killing his wife and is serving life in prison.
Compiled by The WatchSomething wrong?How this is made
Why it matters
- precedent The panel treated ignorance of AI hallucinations as a choice the lawyer made. The next attorney who pleads unfamiliarity with the tool before this court argues against that reasoning.
- exposure A man serving a life sentence loses his lawyer partway through his appeal, and whoever takes over inherits a filing the state's highest court found was built on fabricated witnesses.
- decision The Disciplinary Board now has to decide how much an admitted AI error counts for once a court has already found contempt. Its ruling sets whether Aarons argues before the court again.
The invented material did not stop at the two Stantons. The order also cites fabricated statements "regarding the shooter's clothing and appearance" [4]. In a shooting case, testimony like that bears on identification. Here it was attributed to people who never existed [1]. Every one of those witnesses was a name that could have been searched against the trial transcript before filing [3]. The brief reached the Supreme Court with them still in it [1].
At the August hearing before five judges, Aarons took the blame. "It's little comfort to know that my stupidity is what brings us together this afternoon," he said [5]. He told the panel he had trusted ChatGPT because he had heard of doctors using AI for medical research [7]. One judge asked whether he watched the news or listened to the radio, then said: "Because the problem with lawyers relying on AI hallucinations is an above-the-fold story every single day." [8] The same judge later said: "My 13-year-old nephew knows about hallucinations. My 75-year-old stepmother knows about hallucinations." [10]
Aarons told the court he had not spoken to his client directly, only to family members. He said the client is hard to reach because he speaks Spanish and is in prison [11]. A judge pressed him on whether he had told the family he relied on ChatGPT. "I didn't talk about ChatGPT. I just said there was a problem with a brief that I filed," Aarons said [12].
404 Media, which reported the hearing, says AI errors in lawyers' filings have been a problem for years, and that court reporters are now submitting AI-generated errors as well [18]. It points to May, when judges of the Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division spent more than 20 minutes criticizing several lawyers over their AI use and called their failures "striking, concerning, disappointing, and saddening" [17]. 404 Media does not report what penalties, if any, followed in New York. On this record the New Mexico order is one court's formal sanction [13]. It is not yet evidence that courts in general have moved from rebukes to penalties.
Rob Freund first spotted the court documents and posted them on X [16]. Reuters reported the case earlier this month [14]. Aarons told Reuters: "I am remorseful but hopeful that the disciplinary board takes into account it was an honest mistake." [14] He also told the agency: "It is a lesson learned for all professionals who rely upon this powerful but sometimes unstable technology." [15]
What to watch
- The Disciplinary Board's finding on Aarons, which determines whether his bar from appearing before the New Mexico Supreme Court is lifted.
- How the court handles the pending murder appeal once new counsel files, including what happens to the brief that carried the invented testimony.
- Any reported sanctions from the May New York Appellate Division case, which would show whether New Mexico's contempt finding is an outlier or part of a pattern.