The court’s ruling was unanimous regarding the penalties imposed on the particular Assistant District Attorney involved, and it added a directive: “We strongly encourage trial courts to carefully review proposed orders with the understanding that artificial intelligence software, with all of its potential risks and benefits, may have been used to prepare such proposed orders.”
From Payne v. State, decided last week, in an opinion by Justice Benjamin Land:
Hannah Payne received a life sentence plus 13 years for the murder and false imprisonment of Kenneth Herring and the possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. In response to Payne’s motion for a new trial, the assistant district attorney assigned to the case, Deborah Leslie, submitted a brief that relied upon authorities that do not exist and on authorities that fail to support the proposition asserted in the brief.
In an order largely drafted by ADA Leslie, the trial court denied Payne’s motion for a new trial. That order included citations to non-existent cases and to authorities that do not back the proposition set forth in the order.
In reply to Payne’s appeal, ADA Leslie again cited authorities that do not support the asserted proposition. As a result of these filings, we have been diverted from our duty to resolve the merits of Payne’s appeal and have had to devote substantial time and resources to uncovering this misconduct and determining the appropriate remedy. As explained below, we admonish ADA Leslie and the Clayton County District Attorney’s office; we sanction ADA Leslie and suspend her privilege to practice before our Court; and we vacate the trial court’s order denying Payne’s motion for a new trial and remand the matter to the trial court with instructions to issue a new order that does not contain citations to fictitious cases or other misattributed authorities….
[On appeal,] ADA Leslie acknowledged that the case citations produced by artificial intelligence software were not independently verified before inclusion in the State’s briefs or proposed order and stated that she had put safeguards in place to ensure that fictitious or misattributed authorities would not appear in future filings. Beyond the nine cases identified in this Court’s March 20, 2025 order, ADA Leslie identified twelve additional cases in her briefing to the trial court that she concedes were generated by AI, were not independently verified, and do not support the propositions for which they were offered….
We admonish ADA Leslie and the Clayton County District Attorney’s Office for failing to verify the accuracy of case citations and then including a substantial number of inaccurate authorities in their filings before this Court and the trial court. See Supreme Court Rule 7 (“Parties and counsel are responsible for ensuring that their filings with the Court, including briefs, shall be carefully checked for truthfulness and accuracy as the rules already require.”).
{We acknowledge the Clayton County District Attorney’s March 27, 2026, letter to this Court, in which the District Attorney apologized for the post-trial filings in this case, stated that her office would be “expanding [its] internet and social media use policies to specifically address the use of artificial intelligence,” and indicated that “strict disciplinary action ha[d] been taken against” ADA Leslie. The dissent relies upon this letter in support of its position that we should not admonish the District Attorney. First, we have not admonished the District Attorney individually but rather admonished her office, since ADA Leslie submitted the filings at issue on behalf of that office. Second, we are puzzled by the dissent’s reference to the District Attorney as the “elected District Attorney.” All district attorneys in Georgia are elected, and that status has no bearing on their obligations to the courts in which they practice or our obligations when faced with misconduct arising out of their offices.} …
We hereby suspend ADA Deborah Leslie’s privilege to practice before the Supreme Court of Georgia for six months…. {The sanctions imposed by this Court are case-specific and based on the information and material in the record. Nothing stated herein shall be construed to affect, in any manner, any disciplinary proceedings that may be brought by the State Bar of Georgia, the Judicial Qualifications Commission, or any other entity.} …
Because the trial court’s September 12, 2025, order denying Payne’s motion for a new trial contains numerous fictitious or misattributed case citations, we hereby vacate the trial court’s order and remand the case to the trial court with instructions that it prepare and issue a new order on Payne’s motion for a new trial. The trial court’s order shall not contain any fictitious or misattributed case citations, and given the unfortunate circumstances that have led us to this point, the trial court’s order shall not be prepared by counsel for either party.
We strongly encourage trial courts to carefully review proposed orders with the understanding that artificial intelligence software, with all of its potential risks and benefits, may have been used to prepare such proposed orders….
Justice Shawn Ellen LaGrua, joined by Justice Verda Colvin, dissented “as to the admonishment of the elected Clayton County District Attorney”:
In this opinion, the majority admonishes and sanctions the assistant district attorney who represents the State in this case, gives direction to the presiding judge regarding the issuance of a new order, and admonishes the elected District Attorney. While I recognize that the District Attorney’s name appears on the briefs and she ultimately bears responsibility for the actions of those who work for her, I also understand that she must be able to trust and rely upon her staff to do their jobs ethically and professionally. Every assistant district attorney takes an oath to that effect.
In this instance, the District Attorney sent a lengthy letter to this Court, copied to opposing counsel, apologizing for the conduct of the assistant district attorney and outlining the severe sanctions imposed on that attorney for her actions in this case. Additionally, the District Attorney assured this Court that she is immediately implementing policies and procedures to keep this from happening in the future. We have absolutely no reason to doubt the veracity of that letter. And I find such proactive disciplinary and preventative measures to be more than sufficient under the circumstances.
Based on the foregoing, I vehemently decline to admonish the elected Clayton County District Attorney and respectfully dissent to that portion of the majority opinion.
