Her Stepmother Also Knows About Hallucinations

Stephen D. Aarons is a criminal defence lawyer in Santa Fe, New Mexico. He has practised for more than forty years. In 2025 he took on a murder appeal. His client had been convicted and sentenced to life in prison.

An appeal is argued on paper first. A brief is the written argument. It tells the appeal court what happened at trial and why the result was wrong.

Aarons gave ChatGPT a computer-generated transcript of the trial and other case materials. He later said he “assumed” ChatGPT would produce a “bulletproof summary of proceedings.” He did not check the result. He signed the brief and filed it with the New Mexico Supreme Court.

The brief quoted four witnesses who do not exist. Two of them were police officers. It also gave false testimony to at least one witness who does exist. Several statements described the shooter’s clothing. According to the brief, the shooter wore dark pants and a white shirt. The Court called these “fictional statements.”

The brief also misdescribed two earlier decisions of the Court. Lawyers cite earlier decisions, called precedents, to show how the law applies. The final count was four invented witnesses, two misdescribed precedents, at least one misquoted real witness and one white shirt.

The Court raised the matter on its own motion. It ordered Aarons to show cause in person on 21 August 2026. That means explaining why the Court should not sanction him. At the hearing, Aarons said: “It’s little comfort to know that my stupidity is what brings us together this afternoon.” He said he had heard of doctors using AI for medical research.

Justice C. Shannon Bacon asked him three questions. “Do you watch the news? Do you listen to the radio? Do you read anything about what’s going on in the world?” She said the problem with lawyers relying on AI hallucinations is “an above-the-fold story every single day.” A hallucination is false content that an AI presents as fact.

Justice Bacon also gave the Court two data points. Her 13-year-old nephew knows about hallucinations. So does her 75-year-old stepmother. The professional standard for a lawyer of forty years now sits between them.

The Court found Aarons in direct contempt of court. Direct contempt is misconduct committed in the presence of the Court. He must pay $5,000 to the State Bar of New Mexico Client Protection Fund within thirty days. The Court referred him to the Disciplinary Board, which investigates the conduct of lawyers. He may not appear before the Court while that process continues.

The Court found that Aarons “demonstrated a lack of remorse and a lack of concern for his client.” He had not told his client about the false brief. He had not told him about the hearing either. He said the client is hard to reach. The client speaks Spanish and is in prison.

The Court struck every brief in the case. It appointed the Law Office of the Public Defender to take over the appeal. The Public Defender represents defendants at public expense. The appeal now starts again from the first page. The four witnesses will not be called.

Aarons told Reuters it was “a lesson learned for all professionals who rely upon this powerful but sometimes unstable technology.” OpenAI did not immediately respond to Reuters. ChatGPT was not ordered to appear. It is not, at present, in contempt.