Are you taking AI too far? New Mexico Supreme Court Fines Lawyer $5,000 for Submitting ‘False Testimony’ Brief Created by ChatGPT | Today’s news
The New Mexico Supreme Court on Wednesday fined a defense attorney $5,000 after he submitted a brief containing false police testimony and fabricated witness statements generated by OpenAI’s ChatGPT.
Stephen Aarons, a defense attorney representing a client on appeal against a murder conviction, was held in contempt for failing to verify the accuracy of the filing. He said he prepared the brief with the help of an artificial intelligence (AI) program, Reuters reported.
Read also | Who is Jacob Coxon? Its AI security warning and how OpenAI, Anthropic responded
Here is what happened
Aarons, a private attorney in Santa Fe, represented Oscar Renee Sandoval in his appeal. Sandoval pleaded not guilty to killing the mother of his children, but was convicted last year and sentenced to life in prison.
Last month, the New Mexico Supreme Court asked Aarons to explain how the fabricated material, which allegedly contained details such as “fictitious statements that the shooter was wearing dark pants and a white shirt,” made it into his appeal.
At the Aug. 21 hearing, the private attorney told the panel that he had uploaded a computer-generated transcript and other case materials to ChatGPT, with the assumption that the AI chatbot would generate a “bulletproof summary.”
After hearing his explanation, the judges expressed disbelief that he was not fully aware of the AI’s potential to make mistakes. Judge C Shannon Bacon said: “Dear people, do you watch the news? Do you listen to the radio? Do you read anything about what’s going on in the world?” adding: “Because the problem with lawyers relying on artificial intelligence hallucinations is getting bigger every day.”
Read also | ‘Stop ChatGPT’: 14-year-old Twitter post goes viral, sparking conspiracy theories
The defense attorney said in a statement that when he agreed to take over the defendant’s case last year, he used ChatGPT, an OpenAI chatbot, to summarize court proceedings. However, he said he did not understand the extent to which the chatbot could “hallucinate” facts.
He said: “I’m sorry but I hope the disciplinary committee will take into account that this was an honest mistake,” adding: “It’s a lesson to all professionals who rely on this powerful but sometimes unstable technology.”
Aarons’ case comes as courts across the United States are seeing a growing number of cases in which lawyers have been disciplined by state and federal judges for using artificial intelligence tools without properly vetting their court documents before filing them. According to the report, some judges also faced scrutiny of their own use of AI.
In addition, several lawyers faced sanctions for submitting information containing AI-generated errors, including false case citations and incorrect references to the law. Aarons’ filing appeared to take the issue a step further, with fabricated witness testimony included in the criminal appeal.
What did the court say?
The court said the file “contained false testimony from entirely fabricated witnesses” and added that Aarons “demonstrated a lack of remorse and a lack of concern for his client.” The panel also noted that Aarons would be referred to the Bar Disciplinary Commission for further investigation.
The appeal, which is still pending, was assigned to Kim Chavez Cook, New Mexico’s public defender, earlier this month.
(with inputs from Reuters)
