New Mexico defense lawyer Stephen Aarons has been fined $5,000 (about 35,500 yuan) by the state Supreme Court for submitting an appeal brief that included fabricated witness testimony and police statements generated by OpenAI's ChatGPT. The court found him in contempt for failing to verify the accuracy of court filings.
The case was reported by Reuters and picked up by Chinese technology outlet IThome. It concerns an appeal for a client convicted of murder. Aarons said he used ChatGPT to organize trial transcripts, but did not realize how much the AI could "hallucinate" facts. The court said the false testimony came from "entirely fictitious witnesses."
A costly assumption
The judges said Aarons showed a lack of remorse and concern for his client. Along with the fine, he has been referred to the attorney disciplinary committee for investigation. In his defense, Aarons said he was remorseful and hoped the committee would view his error as an honest mistake. He added that all professionals relying on this powerful but sometimes unstable technology should draw lessons from his case.
The court was reportedly incredulous that a lawyer could be so unaware of AI's tendency to invent content. "Counsel, do you watch the news? Listen to the radio? Have some awareness of what's going on?" Judge C. Shannon Bacon asked during a hearing, noting that lawyers relying on AI hallucinations are daily headline news.
A growing problem for the legal profession
Aarons is not alone. Dozens of U.S. lawyers have already been disciplined by state or federal courts for submitting AI-generated filings containing invented case citations or misquoted legal precedents. But his case stands out because fabricated witness testimony was introduced in a criminal appeal, a far more serious matter.
Last month, the New Mexico Supreme Court ordered Aarons to explain how fictional content entered his principal appeal brief. He said he had fed computer-generated trial transcripts and other case materials into ChatGPT, expecting an "airtight summary" of the proceedings.
The case highlights an emerging tension in the legal profession: AI tools can save time and money, but they can also generate confident-sounding falsehoods that are difficult for busy lawyers to catch. The monetary fine is relatively small, but the referral to the disciplinary committee could have lasting consequences for Aarons' career.
Based on reporting by IT之家. Edited and published in English by geisou.
