Last week the New Mexico Supreme Court issued its decision in State v. Sandoval, as reported by Ars Technica’s Jon Brodkin:
WHEREAS, the respondent conceded in both his written filing and during oral argument that he relied on the generative artificial intelligence (AI) tool ChatGPT to prepare the chief brief submitted to the Court;
WHEREAS, the respondent acknowledged to the Court that the chief brief contained testimony that was entirely false and supplied by witnesses created for the purpose—Officer Michelle Amarillo, Officer Sanchez, Manal Al-Jibury, and Teresa Marquez; false testimony from Danny Stanton asserting he received threats, which he took seriously, from the Defendant-Appellant; false testimony from Linda Stanton about the threats her husband faced; false statements by Mariah Chavez and Teresa Marquez (a fabricated witness) about the shooter’s clothing and appearance; and a misstatement of legal authority in State v. Lopez, 2005-NMSC-018, 138 N.M. 9, 116 P.3d 80 and State v. Manus, 1979-NMSC-035, 93 N.M. 95, 597 P. 2d 280;
WHEREAS, the respondent admitted that he did not verify the factual claims or the legal authorities cited in his AI-generated brief before signing and filing it, nor did he inform his client of this lapse or that the brief in chief contained multiple factual and legal misrepresentations;
WHEREAS, this matter came before the Court on its own motion to show cause, at which point the Court issued an order directing Respondent, Defendant-Appellant’s attorney Stephen D. Aarons, to appear in person before the Court on August 21, 2026 to show cause why he should not be held in contempt and referred to the Disciplinary Board for the factual and legal misrepresentations he made to the Court in his brief in chief, and the response thereto;
WHEREAS, the respondent further admitted that he did not inform his client of the show-cause proceedings or provide the client with copies of the show-cause pleadings;
WHEREAS, after considering the response and oral argument presented, the Court concluded that the respondent demonstrated a lack of remorse and a lack of concern for his client; …
Chief Justice Julie J. Vargas, Justice Michael E. Vigil, Justice C. Shannon Bacon, Justice David K. Thomson, and Justice Briana H. Zamora concurring;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Respondent, STEPHEN D. AARONS, is found in DIRECT CONTEMPT OF COURT;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter, with respect to Respondent, is hereby referred to the Disciplinary Board for further consideration;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent is barred from appearing before this Court, pending the outcome of the investigation and proceedings, if any, before the Disciplinary Board;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, following the Disciplinary Board investigation and proceedings, if any, the Court will make further determinations regarding Respondent in accordance with the Rules Governing Discipline;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Law Office of the Public Defender is hereby appointed to represent Defendant-Appellant in this appeal and shall assign counsel to this matter who shall enter an appearance on behalf of Defendant-Appellant forthwith;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all briefing filed in this matter is hereby STRICKEN;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, following the entry of appearance of new defense counsel, a new briefing order shall be issued and the case will proceed with the intention that it will be heard during the Court’s 2026-2027 term;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that as a sanction for direct contempt, Stephen D. Aarons shall, within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, pay a sum of five thousand dollars ($5,000) to the State Bar of New Mexico Client Protection Fund and shall notify the Court in writing when such payment is made ….
Further details are available in the Ars Technica coverage.
