Lawyer fabricates witnesses for trial, blames ChatGPT

A lawyer appealing his client’s murder conviction submitted a legal brief of fabricated police testimony and ⁠witnesses - thanks to his use of ChatGPT.

One would think with such high stakes he would have used more solid evidence, but then one would be wrong.

The New Mexico supreme court on Wednesday fined the attorney, Stephen Aarons, and held him in contempt for failing to verify the accuracy of the documents he submitted.

The Guardian reported that the court slammed the lawyer, and fined him $7000 for documents that “contained false testimony from wholly fabricated witnesses."

The court was shocked that Aarons had “demonstrated a lack of remorse and a lack of concern ⁠for his client.” He has been referred to the legal disciplinary board.

Aarons in a ​statement said he had used ChatGPT to summarize ‌the trial proceedings after he agreed ‌to take on the defendant’s appeal last year, but did not understand the degree to which AI could “hallucinate” facts.

“I am remorseful but ‌hopeful that the disciplinary board takes into account it was an honest mistake,” he said. “It is a lesson learned for all professionals who rely upon this powerful but sometimes unstable technology.”

Court fines lawyer for fabricating witnesses with ChatGPT 

Aarons was appealing the conviction of Oscar Renee Sandoval, who pleaded not guilty to the murder of the mother of his children, before he was convicted and sentenced last year to life in prison.

The appeal is still pending, but has now been assigned to Kim Chavez Cook, a public defender.

Aarons was asked to explain how he created the documents which "​appeared to include fictional statements that the shooter ​was wearing dark pants and a white shirt.”

He told the court ​that he gave ChatGPT the court transcript from the original trial, thinking it would ​create “a bulletproof summary”.

The court was in disbelief that Aarons did not factor in the general knowledge that AI is fallible.

“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 Shannon Bacon said. 

“Because the problem with lawyers relying on AI hallucinations is an ‘above-the-fold’ story every single day.”

AI a growing issue in the legal profession

The Guardian reports that "the court’s sanction is the latest in a growing number of cases in which state and federal judges have disciplined lawyers for submitting court documents generated by AI tools without adequately vetting them. 

“Dozens of lawyers ‌have been sanctioned for filing briefs in which AI made up case citations or misquoted the law.”

It seems that Aaron's wrongdoing has taken the issue further by entirely fabricating witnesses.

In recent years, the legal profession has also faced job losses as AI takes over some processes.

“Total graduate hiring across eight major Australian law firms fell by 7% to 716 positions,” The Australian Financial Review found earlier this year, which it says “suggest severe efficiency-driven reductions for screen-based office work.”