The New Mexico Supreme Court on Wednesday fined a defence lawyer $5,000 after he submitted a brief containing fake police testimony and fabricated witness statements generated by OpenAI’s ChatGPT.
Stephen Aarons, a defence lawyer representing a client in an appeal against a murder conviction, was held in contempt for failing to verify the accuracy of the filing. He said he prepared the brief with the help of the artificial intelligence (AI) programme, Reuters reported.
Here’s what happened
Aarons, a private attorney from Santa Fe, was representing Oscar Renee Sandoval in his appeal. Sandoval had pleaded not guilty to killing the mother of his children but was convicted and sentenced to life in prison last year.
Last month, the New Mexico Supreme Court asked Aarons to explain how the fabricated material, which reportedly contained details such as “fictional statements that the shooter was wearing dark pants and a white shirt,” came to be included in his main appeal brief.
At a hearing on 21 August, the private attorney told the panel that he uploaded a computer-generated transcript and other case materials to ChatGPT, assuming that the AI chatbot would generate “a bulletproof summary.”
After hearing his explanation, the judges expressed disbelief that he was not fully aware of AI’s potential to make mistakes. Justice C Shannon Bacon said, “Counsel, do you watch the news? Do you listen to the radio? Do you read anything about what’s going on in the world?” and added, “Because the problem with lawyers relying on AI hallucinations is an above-the-fold story every single day.”
In a statement, the defence lawyer said that when he agreed to take up the defendant’s case last year, he used ChatGPT, OpenAI‘s chatbot, to summarise the trial proceedings. However, he said he did not understand the degree to which the chatbot could “hallucinate” facts.
He said, “I am remorseful but hopeful that the disciplinary board takes into account it was an honest mistake,” and added, “It is a lesson learned for all professionals who rely upon this powerful but sometimes unstable technology.”
Aarons’ case comes at a time when courts across the United States are seeing a growing number of cases in which lawyers have been disciplined by both state and federal judges for using AI tools without properly vetting their court documents before submitting them. According to the report, some judges have also faced scrutiny over their own use of AI.
Additionally, several lawyers have faced sanctions for submitting briefs containing AI-generated errors, including fake case citations and incorrect references to the law. Aarons’ filing appears to have taken the issue a step further, with fabricated witness testimony included in a criminal appeal.
What did the court say?
The court said that the filing “contained false testimony from wholly fabricated witnesses,” and added that Aarons had “demonstrated a lack of remorse and a lack of concern for his client.” The panel also noted that Aarons will be referred to an attorney disciplinary board for further investigation.
The appeal, which is still pending, was assigned to Kim Chavez Cook, a New Mexico public defender, earlier this month.
(with inputs from Reuters)
Leave a Reply