Stephen Aarons #

Introduction #

Stephen Aarons is a veteran Santa Fe criminal defense lawyer whose four-decade career collided with the artificial-intelligence era in September 2026, when the New Mexico Supreme Court held him in contempt, fined him $5,000 and removed him from a client’s murder appeal after his appellate brief was found to cite witnesses and testimony that never existed. The court said the filing “contained false testimony from wholly fabricated witnesses” — material Aarons says was generated when he asked ChatGPT to summarize the trial record . The sanction drew international coverage because the fabrication went beyond invented citations: it was witness testimony in a pending criminal appeal . Aarons, who acknowledged his “stupidity” and called the episode “an honest mistake,” now faces a referral to the attorney Disciplinary Board that could bring harsher sanctions, up to and including disbarment .

Background Information #

Aarons has practiced criminal law since 1980, beginning on active military duty in Europe before opening his New Mexico practice in Santa Fe in 1985. Per his firm biography, he served as a JAG officer in the US Army — prosecuting fifty-one courts-martial with the VII Corps in Augsburg, Germany, from 1980 to 1983 — then joined the New Mexico Public Defender Department in Clovis in 1985 and became chief of its death penalty defense division from 1986 to 1989, handling dozens of murder cases . He later taught at the JAG School in Charlottesville (1999–2007) and on the faculties of the University of New Mexico, Harvard, SMU and California Western while building a solo criminal-defense practice . The Santa Fe New Mexican described him as a well-known local lawyer with 38 active cases pending in state courts at the time of the ruling . His client, Oscar Renee Sandoval, a 60-year-old man from Chaparral, was convicted in 2025 of murdering the mother of his children and sentenced to life; Aarons took over the appeal that year .

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation #

Allegations. The court’s contempt finding and its description of the fabricated material are judicial findings; Aarons admits the fabrication occurred but maintains it was an unintentional product of AI “hallucination” rather than deliberate invention. The disciplinary referral is an investigation, not a finding of professional misconduct.

While preparing Sandoval’s appeal, Aarons loaded a computer-generated transcript of the trial and other case materials into ChatGPT, presuming it would generate what he called “a bulletproof summary” of the proceedings . The brief he filed instead contained what the Supreme Court called “false testimony from wholly fabricated witnesses,” including “fictional statements that the shooter was wearing dark pants and a white shirt” — references to several nonexistent witnesses and fictional testimony attributed to at least one real witness . The court ordered Aarons in August 2026 to explain how the material entered his primary brief, and at a hearing he acknowledged his “undue reliance upon generative artificial intelligence,” writing that he had not realized ChatGPT would generate “apparently out of whole cloth, fictitious witnesses, testimony, quotations and authorities in a form that appeared coherent and plausible” . The justices were unconvinced he could be unaware of the risk. “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 C. Shannon Bacon pressed him, adding that lawyers relying on AI hallucinations “is an above-the-fold story every single day” . Justice Michael E. Vigil told him that filing a brief under his own name attests he has checked its accuracy: “he assumed without checking” .

Public Reaction and Consequences #

The New Mexico Supreme Court, per Reuters, fined Aarons $5,000 and held him in contempt on September 9, 2026, for failing to verify the accuracy of the filing, and said it would refer him to the attorney Disciplinary Board for investigation . The Santa Fe New Mexican’s account of the courtroom session added that the justices also removed Aarons from the case, ordered the $5,000 paid to a client protection fund within 30 days, struck all previous briefings in the appeal from the record, and sent the matter to the Disciplinary Board — meaning he could face “even harsher sanctions in the future up to and including disbarment” . The court found he had “demonstrated a lack of remorse and a lack of concern for his client”; under questioning, Aarons admitted he had not even told Sandoval about the hearing, citing the man’s limited English and incarceration . Chief Justice Julie Vargas told him, “We appreciate that you admitted you made a mistake and you were wrong,” before announcing the referral from the bench . Aarons said in a statement to Reuters: “I am remorseful but hopeful that the disciplinary board takes into account it was an honest mistake. It is a lesson learned for all professionals who rely upon this powerful but sometimes unstable technology” . Reuters noted dozens of lawyers have been sanctioned for AI-invented citations, but Aarons’ filing “appears to have gone further, containing fabricated witness testimony in a criminal appeal” .

Current Status #

Aarons remains a licensed Santa Fe defense attorney, but his position is precarious: the Disciplinary Board investigation is pending, and its outcome will determine whether the contempt and fine end the matter or escalate to suspension or disbarment . Sandoval’s appeal is still pending; it was assigned to public defender Kim Chavez Cook — who declined to comment — and, after Aarons’ removal, the justices ordered the appeal to start over with all prior briefings stricken . In his written response to the court, Aarons disclosed recent personal hardships — the death of his three-month-old grandson and upcoming surgery — and said he had since sought continuing legal education on AI use in practice; he did not respond to the New Mexican’s request for comment . His firm site continues to advertise his criminal-defense practice .

Impact on Their Career/Life #

The ruling stripped Aarons of a client he had represented through a life-sentence appeal, erased a year of his appellate work from the record, and put a 40-year legal career — death-penalty defense division chief, JAG prosecutor, trial-advocacy professor — under disciplinary investigation that could end it entirely . His name became a shorthand for a new tier of AI legal trouble: Reuters, the New York Post and international outlets highlighted that the fabrication was not just citations but the witnesses themselves . It also became a reference point in New Mexico’s regulation debate: federal judges there already require AI disclosure, while the state Supreme Court’s AI committee has issued only interim guidance to verify AI-assisted work . Whatever the Disciplinary Board decides, his own words are the coda: a 40-year lawyer who “assumed without checking” .