---
title: "New Mexico Judges Punish Lawyer Who Filed ChatGPT-Invented Testimony"
description: "Stephen D. Aarons blamed his own stupidity after the state’s highest court found fabricated witnesses in his murder appeal."
author: "rews desk"
published: 2026-09-30T18:15:31Z
modified: 2026-10-01T00:57:58Z
url: https://rews.cc/a/new-mexico-judges-punish-lawyer-who-filed-chatgpt-invented-t-b8af95
language: en
tags: ["law", "ai", "lawyers", "chatgpt", "ethics", "us"]
publisher: "Rews (https://rews.cc)"
---

# New Mexico Judges Punish Lawyer Who Filed ChatGPT-Invented Testimony

*Stephen D. Aarons blamed his own stupidity after the state’s highest court found fabricated witnesses in his murder appeal.*

By rews desk · September 30, 2026 · https://rews.cc/a/new-mexico-judges-punish-lawyer-who-filed-chatgpt-invented-t-b8af95

## In brief

- New Mexico’s Supreme Court held a lawyer in direct contempt over ChatGPT-invented witnesses
- Stephen D. Aarons said he assumed ChatGPT would produce a bulletproof summary of proceedings
- A judge told him his 13-year-old nephew knew about AI hallucinations
- Aarons was fined $5,000, barred from the court and referred to the Disciplinary Board
- A public defender was assigned to his client, who is serving a life sentence

New Mexico’s Supreme Court held a defense lawyer in direct contempt, fined him $5,000 and removed him from a murder case after he filed appellate briefs built on witnesses and testimony that ChatGPT invented, 404 Media reported on Tuesday.

The lawyer, Stephen D. Aarons, represented a man found guilty earlier this year of killing his wife. According to the court’s order of direct contempt, the fabricated material included a nonexistent witness named Danny Stanton who said he had received threats, a made-up Linda Stanton who said her husband had received threats, and invented statements “regarding the shooter’s clothing and appearance.”

At a hearing in August before five judges, Mr. Aarons said he had assumed ChatGPT would generate a “bulletproof summary of proceedings.” “It’s little comfort to know that my stupidity is what brings us together this afternoon,” he said. His reasoning for trusting the tool, he explained, was that he had heard of doctors using AI for medical research.

One judge was unmoved. “So, Counsel, do you watch the news? Do you listen to the radio? Do you read anything about what’s going on in the world?” the judge asked. “Because the problem with lawyers relying on AI hallucinations is an above-the-fold story every single day.” Mr. Aarons answered, “Well, I didn’t understand. I didn’t know about hallucinations.” The judge pressed on: “My 13-year-old nephew knows about hallucinations. My 75-year-old stepmother knows about hallucinations. So, either you made a decision not to be aware of what’s happening in the world in using this tool appropriately, which is a willful choice. Or you decided to roll the dice.”

Mr. Aarons also acknowledged he had not told his client directly about the case, saying the man is hard to reach because he speaks Spanish and is in prison, where he is serving a life sentence. He had told family members only that there was “a problem with the brief.” “I didn’t talk about ChatGPT. I just said there was a problem with a brief that I filed,” he said.

“I am remorseful but hopeful that the disciplinary board takes into account it was an honest mistake,” Mr. Aarons told Reuters, which reported on the case earlier this month. “It is a lesson learned for all professionals who rely upon this powerful but sometimes unstable technology.”

Under the order, the judges referred Mr. Aarons to the state Disciplinary Board for further consideration, barred him from appearing before the court pending the board’s investigation, took him off the case and assigned a public defender to his former client. The $5,000 sanction goes to the State Bar of New Mexico’s Client Protection Fund. The court documents were first spotted by Rob Freund on X.

The case joins a yearslong run of lawyers caught filing error-ridden, AI-generated documents, 404 Media noted. In May, judges on New York’s Appellate Division spent more than 20 minutes rebuking lawyers over their AI use, calling their failures “striking, concerning, disappointing, and saddening.” Court reporters have filed AI-generated errors, too.