A New Mexico Supreme Court ruling finds lawyer Stephen Aarons in contempt after he submits a brief for a murder appeal that includes invented witness statements and entirely fabricated witnesses. The court says the filing contains false information, including police testimony that was not real.
The Guardian reports that Aarons acknowledged he used ChatGPT to help draft parts of the appeal, describing his approach as an effort to produce a “bulletproof summary.” Quartz similarly states the court identifies fabricated material in the brief, characterizing the witnesses and statements as wholly invented. In its order, the court also imposes a fine, citing Aarons’s failure to verify the accuracy of the information included in the filing.
Across the outlets, the central focus is the Supreme Court’s finding that the court filing contained non-existent testimony and that the attorney did not adequately check or confirm what the AI produced. The reports differ mainly in how they describe Aarons’s stated intent and framing, but they agree on the court’s determination and the nature of the false content.
