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

The New Mexico Supreme Court disciplined a lawyer who used ChatGPT to draft a court filing, finding it in direct contempt for containing fabricated witness statements, including alleged police remarks. The court ruled that attorney Stephen Aarons failed to verify the facts or the legal authority in the AI‑generated document before signing and filing it, and he also did not inform his client of these shortcomings. Consequently, the judge referred the matter to the state disciplinary board to continue the sanctioning process, noting the lawyer’s lack of remorse and indifference to the client’s interests.

Aarons, with more than forty years of experience as a criminal defense attorney, had been hired by the family of defendant Oscar Renee Sandoval to appeal his first‑degree murder conviction, which ended in a life sentence in 2025. The filing contained numerous factual and legal inaccuracies, leading the court to classify the conduct as a serious breach of professional ethics.

This ruling underscores the need for attorneys to rigorously supervise any AI‑generated content before using it in legal proceedings. The case warns of the dangers of blindly relying on automated tools and reinforces lawyers’ responsibility to ensure the accuracy and integrity of their arguments.

Read the original article on Ars Technica AI

This summary is an informational synthesis produced by dataqbs.com. All rights to the original content belong to its author and the cited media outlet. We act solely as curators of technology news and claim no authorship.