New Mexico Supreme Court Finds Lawyer in Contempt for Using AI to Generate False Testimony

New Mexico's highest court has found attorney Stephen D. Aarons in direct contempt of court after he admitted to using the artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT to generate false testimony and legal citations in a brief filed on behalf of his client, Defendant-Appellant Sandoval. The incident occurred during proceedings related to State v. Sandoval last week.

Aarons acknowledged that the brief contained fabricated testimonies from several witnesses, including Officer Michelle Amarillo, Officer Sanchez, Manal Al-Jibury, and Teresa Marquez. He also admitted to creating false statements about threats received by Danny Stanton and Linda Stanton, as well as misrepresentations regarding the appearance of a shooter. Additionally, Aarons misrepresented legal authority in two cases: State v. Lopez and State v. Manus.

The court issued an order on its own motion to show cause why Aarons should not be held in contempt for these actions. During the hearing, Aarons admitted that he did not verify the factual claims or legal authorities generated by ChatGPT before filing them with the court. He also failed to inform his client about the fabricated content and the order to show cause proceedings.

The New Mexico Supreme Court concluded that Aarons demonstrated a lack of remorse and concern for his client's interests, leading to severe sanctions. Chief Justice Julie J. Vargas and Justices Michael E. Vigil, C. Shannon Bacon, David K. Thomson, and Briana H. Zamora concurred in the decision.

As a result of these findings, Aarons has been referred to the Disciplinary Board for further consideration. He is also barred from appearing before the New Mexico Supreme Court until the disciplinary proceedings conclude. The court ordered that all briefing filed by Aarons be stricken and instructed the Law Office of the Public Defender to appoint new counsel for Defendant-Appellant Sandoval.

A monetary sanction was imposed on Aarons, requiring him to pay $5,000 to the State Bar of New Mexico Client Protection Fund within 30 days. This case highlights significant concerns about the use of AI in legal proceedings and underscores the importance of verifying information before presenting it in court.

The incident raises broader questions about the reliability and ethical considerations surrounding the integration of AI tools in professional settings, particularly in fields where accuracy and integrity are paramount.