New Mexico's Supreme Court fines lawyer $5,000 over ChatGPT-fabricated witnesses in murder case
New Mexico's Supreme Court fined lawyer Stephen Aarons $5,000 and held him in contempt after he filed an appeal brief, in a client's murder case, that the court says contained AI-fabricated witnesses and fake police testimony, according to a report from Reuters. The court's filing, made on a Wednesday, states that Aarons failed to "verify the factual claims and legal authority in his AI-generated brief."
The filing says the brief "contained false testimony from wholly fabricated witnesses," along with "false testimony" about the shooter's clothing and appearance. At an August hearing, Aarons admitted he had used ChatGPT while preparing the brief and said he expected it to generate a "bulletproof summary" of the trial. Justice C. Shannon Bacon questioned how Aarons could have been unaware of the risks of relying on AI for legal work.
Bacon, quoted by Reuters, asked Aarons: "Counsel, do you watch the news? Do you listen to the radio? Do you read anything about what's going on in the world?" Bacon went on to say that the problem of lawyers relying on AI hallucinations has become "an above-the-fold story every single day."
The report notes that as more lawyers use AI tools in their work, courts are finding more instances of citations that are fabricated, or hallucinated, by AI. It points to two other, unrelated cases: last year, a judge sanctioned two law firms for filing a brief with "numerous false, inaccurate, and misleading legal citations and quotations," and lawyers representing MyPillow's Mike Lindell were separately fined for including AI-generated misquotes and fake AI citations in a brief.
In a statement to Reuters, Aarons said: "I am remorseful but hopeful that the disciplinary board takes into account it was an honest mistake."
Key facts
- New Mexico's Supreme Court fined lawyer Stephen Aarons $5,000 and held him in contempt over an appeal brief, in a client's murder case, that contained AI-fabricated witnesses and fake police testimony.
- Aarons admitted at an August hearing that he used ChatGPT to help prepare the brief, expecting it to produce a "bulletproof summary" of the trial.
- The court's filing says the brief "contained false testimony from wholly fabricated witnesses," plus false testimony about the shooter's clothing and appearance.
- Justice C. Shannon Bacon asked Aarons, "Counsel, do you watch the news?" and said lawyers relying on AI hallucinations has become "an above-the-fold story every single day."
- The case follows other separate, unrelated AI sanctions: a judge penalized two law firms last year, and lawyers for MyPillow's Mike Lindell were fined over fake AI citations.
Why it matters
This sanction lands in a criminal appeal over a murder conviction, and it shows a court will hold a lawyer in contempt for unverified AI content regardless of the stakes involved. Justice Bacon's comment that such incidents are now "an above-the-fold story every single day" signals that courts increasingly expect lawyers to already know the risk of AI-generated errors before they file anything built on one.
Who it affects
The immediate parties are lawyer Stephen Aarons, who was fined and held in contempt, and an unnamed client whose murder-conviction appeal relied on the flawed brief. More broadly, it affects any lawyer who drafts filings with ChatGPT or similar tools, and the courts and disciplinary boards now tasked with catching fabricated evidence before it reaches a ruling. The report places Aarons alongside two other, separate cases: a pair of law firms sanctioned last year for false citations, and lawyers for MyPillow's Mike Lindell, fined over AI-generated misquotes.
How to use it
There is no product or service to adopt here, only a warning about how not to use one: Aarons expected ChatGPT to produce a "bulletproof summary" of a trial and instead got fabricated witnesses and false testimony that a court called contempt-worthy. The practical takeaway is procedural, not technical: any AI-drafted legal document needs the same fact-checking and citation-checking a lawyer would apply to a junior associate's draft, before it gets anywhere near a filing.
How solid is it
The account rests on a court filing and on-record quotes gathered by Reuters and relayed by The Verge, including direct language from the New Mexico Supreme Court's filing, from Justice Bacon at the August hearing, and from Aarons' own statement. That supports the central facts well: the $5,000 fine, the contempt finding, and what the brief contained. The report does not give a specific calendar date beyond "Wednesday" for the filing, does not name Aarons' client or the underlying case, and does not disclose dollar figures for the earlier, unrelated sanctions against the two law firms or against Mike Lindell's lawyers.
Risks and caveats
The report does not say what happens to the underlying murder-conviction appeal itself, only that the court fined and held Aarons in contempt over the brief that supported it. It also does not confirm that a disciplinary board referral has formally been made: Aarons' statement that he is "hopeful" the board treats this as an honest mistake is the only mention of that process. The claim that AI-hallucination incidents among lawyers are increasing is the article's own framing, with no cited count or study behind it. The two-law-firm and Mike Lindell cases are offered only as context for a broader pattern; they are separate, unrelated proceedings with no bearing on Aarons' own case.
“Counsel, do you watch the news? Do you listen to the radio? Do you read anything about what's going on in the world?”
— Justice C. Shannon Bacon, New Mexico Supreme Court