Background
Stephen D. Aarons, counsel for defendant-appellant Oscar Renee Sandoval, acknowledged using ChatGPT to prepare a brief in chief filed with the New Mexico Supreme Court. According to the court, the brief included testimony attributed to wholly fabricated witnesses, false testimony attributed to actual witnesses, and misrepresentations of two New Mexico decisions.
Aarons admitted that he did not verify the AI-generated factual claims and legal authority before signing and filing the brief. He also admitted that he did not tell Sandoval about those failures, the brief’s misrepresentations, or the ensuing show-cause proceedings, and did not provide Sandoval with the show-cause pleadings. After considering Aarons’s written response and oral argument, the court found that he demonstrated a lack of remorse and concern for his client.
The Court’s Holding
The court found Aarons in direct contempt. It relied on the sanctions authorized for noncompliance with New Mexico’s appellate-briefing requirements and on its inherent authority to regulate court proceedings and discipline attorneys under its constitutional power of superintending control.
As sanctions, the court ordered Aarons to pay $5,000 to the State Bar of New Mexico Client Protection Fund within 30 days, referred him to the Disciplinary Board, and barred him from appearing before the court pending the outcome of any disciplinary investigation and proceedings. The court also struck all briefing, appointed the Law Office of the Public Defender to represent Sandoval, and directed that new briefing begin after replacement counsel enters an appearance. It resolved the attorney-misrepresentation issues through a nonprecedential order under Rule 12-405(B) NMRA.
Key Takeaways
- Submitting an AI-generated brief containing unverified fabricated facts and misrepresented legal authorities supported a finding of direct contempt.
- The sanctions included a $5,000 payment, referral to the Disciplinary Board, and a temporary bar on appearing before the New Mexico Supreme Court.
- The court struck the existing briefing, appointed the public defender, and ordered that briefing restart after new counsel appears.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the serious consequences that may follow when counsel files AI-generated material without verifying its factual and legal accuracy. The court treated the resulting fabrications and misrepresentations as conduct implicating the integrity of judicial proceedings, attorney discipline, and the administration of justice.
The disposition is nonprecedential, and the opinion cautions that Rule 12-405 NMRA restricts citation of unpublished decisions. Even so, its sanctions provide a concrete warning about counsel’s responsibility for material submitted under counsel’s signature.