A New Mexico lawyer was fined $5,000 for using ChatGPT to generate fake witnesses and testimony in a murder case appeal, highlighting risks of AI hallucinations in legal work.
<figure>
<img alt="Digital photo collage of a judge with gavel whose hands has too many fingers." data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="Illustration by Cath Virginia / The Verge | Photos from Getty Images" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25384193/STK470_AI_LAW_CVIRGINIA_C.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&crop=0,0,100,100" />
<figcaption>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">New Mexico's Supreme Court is punishing a lawyer for including AI-fabricated witnesses and fake police testimony in an appeal for his client's murder conviction, according to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/chatgpt-invented-fake-police-testimony-murder-appeal-new-mexico-high-court-says-2026-09-11/">a report from <em>Reuters</em></a>. In <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28617907-nm-lawyer-ai-brief/">a filing on Wednesday</a>, the court fined Stephen Aarons $5,000 and held him in contempt for failing to "verify the factual claims and legal authority in his AI-generated brief."</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The filing says the brief "contained false testimony from wholly fabricated witnesses," along with "false testimony" about the shooter's clothing and appearance. Justice C. Shannon Bacon questioned how Aarons wasn't aware of the risks posed by AI during an August hearing …</p>
<p><a href="https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/994207/chatgpt-new-mexico-lawyer-fined-murder-appeal">Read the full story at The Verge.</a></p>
# Lawyer fined $5K over AI-hallucinated witnesses in a murder case
Source: [https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/994207/chatgpt-new-mexico-lawyer-fined-murder-appeal](https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/994207/chatgpt-new-mexico-lawyer-fined-murder-appeal)
[Skip to main content](https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/994207/chatgpt-new-mexico-lawyer-fined-murder-appeal#content)
A justice asked, ‘Counsel, do you watch the news?’ when a lawyer admitted to relying on ChatGPT without understanding the risks\.
A justice asked, ‘Counsel, do you watch the news?’ when a lawyer admitted to relying on ChatGPT without understanding the risks\.
by
Sep 11, 2026, 8:44 PM UTC


Illustration by Cath Virginia / The Verge \| Photos from Getty Images
[](https://www.theverge.com/authors/emma-roth)
Emma Roth
is a news writer who covers the streaming wars, consumer tech, crypto, social media, and much more\. Previously, she was a writer and editor at MUO\.
New Mexico’s Supreme Court is punishing a lawyer for including AI\-fabricated witnesses and fake police testimony in an appeal for his client’s murder conviction, according to[a report from*Reuters*](https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/chatgpt-invented-fake-police-testimony-murder-appeal-new-mexico-high-court-says-2026-09-11/)\. In[a filing on Wednesday](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28617907-nm-lawyer-ai-brief/), the court fined Stephen Aarons $5,000 and held him in contempt for failing to “verify the factual claims and legal authority in his AI\-generated brief\.”
The filing says the brief “contained false testimony from wholly fabricated witnesses,” along with “false testimony” about the shooter’s clothing and appearance\. Justice C\. Shannon Bacon questioned how Aarons wasn’t aware of the risks posed by AI during an August hearing, where he admitted to using ChatGPT and thinking it would generate a “bulletproof summary” of the trial\. “Counsel, do you watch the news? Do you listen to the radio? Do you read anything about what’s going on in the world?” Justice Bacon said, according to*Reuters*\. “Because the problem with lawyers relying on AI hallucinations is an above\-the\-fold story every single day\.”
With the[number of lawyers using AI tools](https://www.theverge.com/policy/677373/lawyers-chatgpt-hallucinations-ai)in their work[increasing](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/law_practice/resources/law-practice-magazine/2026/march-april-2026/8am-legal-industry-report/), so are the instances in which a court discovers citations that are fabricated — or hallucinated — by AI\. Last year, a judge slammed[two law firms for submitting a brief](https://www.theverge.com/news/666443/judge-slams-lawyers-ai-bogus-research)with “numerous false, inaccurate, and misleading legal citations and quotations,” while[lawyers for MyPillow’s Mike Lindell](https://www.theverge.com/news/701557/the-mypillow-guys-lawyers-got-fined-for-using-false-ai-generated-citations)were also fined for putting AI\-generated misquotes and fake AI citations in a brief\.
”I am remorseful but hopeful that the disciplinary board takes into account it was an honest mistake,” Aarons says in a statement to*Reuters*\.
**Follow topics and authors**from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates\.
- Emma Roth
## The Verge Daily
A free daily digest of the news that matters most\.
A New Mexico defense lawyer was held in contempt of court for submitting an AI-generated brief containing fake testimony from fabricated witnesses after using ChatGPT. He admitted to not verifying the content, leading to disciplinary action.
A Mississippi federal judge cancelled a trial and sanctioned all four lawyers involved after discovering both sides used AI to generate legal filings that contained hallucinated, nonexistent case citations, highlighting the risks of unverified AI use in the legal profession.
A US federal appeals court sanctioned two lawyers for filing briefs with AI-made-up cases, underscoring the persistent issue of AI hallucinations in legal practice and the necessity of independent citation verification.
A Maine attorney faces sanctions, including mandatory training, for relying on AI in a court filing which resulted in citation errors and mischaracterizations of case law.
An AI-based law firm, Garfield AI, won its first court trial in the UK, recovering £7,000 for a freelancer after receiving regulatory approval. The case demonstrates the real-world potential of legal AI to enforce rights at lower cost.