ChatGPT-using lawyer punished for citing fake testimony from made-up witnesses
The New Mexico Supreme Court held a ChatGPT-using lawyer in direct contempt of court for submitting a brief with "false testimony from wholly fabricated witnesses," including fake police testimony and other mistakes. The state's top court referred the lawyer to a disciplinary board for further proceedings and concluded that he "demonstrated a lack of remorse and a lack of concern for his client." Attorney Stephen Aarons "admitted to the Court that he did not verify the factual claims and legal authority in his AI-generated brief before signing it and filing it with the Court, and that he did not inform his client of this failure or that the brief in chief contained multiple factual and legal misrepresentations," the state Supreme Court said in an order on Wednesday. Aarons has been a criminal defense lawyer in New Mexico for over 40 years and was hired by a defendant's family members to appeal a murder conviction. Aaron's now-former client, Oscar Renee Sandoval, was sentenced to life in prison in February 2025 after being convicted of killing Shiereen Al-Jibury, who was his partner and the mother of his children. Read full article Comments
Every model that read this
| Model | Provider | Stage | Score | Conf. | Latency | Prompt | When |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Llama 3.3 70B | Meta | analysis | -75 | 80% | 3520ms | v1.0.0 / m1.0.1 | 2026-09-12 00:17 |
| GPT-4.1 mini | OpenAI | consensus | -40 | 90% | 4200ms | v1.0.0 / m1.0.1 | 2026-09-12 00:17 |
| Claude Sonnet 5 | Anthropic | consensus | -40 | 75% | 5159ms | v1.0.0 / m1.0.1 | 2026-09-12 00:17 |
| Gemini 2.5 Flash | consensus | -100 | 90% | 2316ms | v1.0.0 / m1.0.1 | 2026-09-12 00:18 | |
| Mistral Small 3.1 24B | Mistral AI | consensus | -55 | 90% | 5858ms | v1.0.0 / m1.0.1 | 2026-09-12 00:18 |
AI-generated brief led to false testimony
The lawyer's submission of AI-generated false testimony without verification shows a risk of AI misuse in legal contexts, undermining justice and potentially harming defendants. This event reflects concerns about negligence and trust with AI assistance in critical professions. The evidence is solid and the implication material but not extreme.
This is a concrete, documented case of AI misuse causing real harm in a high-stakes legal proceeding, with institutional accountability following. It illustrates a recurring failure mode of unverified AI output in professional contexts rather than a systemic AI risk to society broadly.
An attorney used AI to generate legal arguments, leading to the submission of fabricated evidence and testimony to the Supreme Court. This direct and unverified reliance on AI severely compromised professional obligations and the legal process, resulting in punishment for the attorney and potential harm to the client's appeal. The incident demonstrates a clear, negative impact on human flourishing within the justice system.
A lawyer's misuse of AI led to false testimony and legal misrepresentations. This highlights risks of AI misuse in critical fields. The lawyer's lack of verification and remorse exacerbates the concern.
Evidence extracted
- Lawyer used ChatGPT to generate a brief
- Brief contained false testimony from fabricated witnesses
- Lawyer did not verify factual claims before filing
SOURCE Ars Technica: AI (tier 1)
↓
DOCUMENT c098c193-cf45-43cf-a134-0899a0a3a2a1
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/09/chatgpt-using-lawyer-punished-for-citing-fake-testimony-from-made-up-witnesses
↓
EVIDENCE 3 extracted excerpts
↓
MODEL RUN 5 runs, methodology 1.0.1
↓
SCORE -62 (Adverse)
↓
CONFIDENCE 85%