The Dispositional Order of Direct Contempt in State of New Mexico v. Oscar Renee Sandoval; In re Stephen D. Aarons, No. S-1-SC-40845, is a per curiam order of the Supreme Court of New Mexico holding Santa Fe attorney Stephen D. Aarons in direct contempt of court for filing a brief in chief prepared with ChatGPT that contained testimony from fabricated witnesses, false testimony attributed to real witnesses, and misrepresented legal authority. It is among the heavier sanctions imposed on a lawyer for AI-fabricated filings, and is recorded in the coverage as issued on 9 September 2026; the order carries no date on its extracted face.
The order is nonprecedential by its own election. Paragraph 19 states that the Court "exercises its discretion under Rule 12-405(B) NMRA to dispose of this matter to the extent it resolves the issues raised pertaining to Respondent's misrepresentations by nonprecedential order rather than a formal opinion," and the header invokes Rule 12-405 NMRA's restrictions on citing unpublished decisions. It is not New Mexico precedent on AI-generated filings.
Procedural posture
The underlying matter is Oscar Renee Sandoval's appeal of a murder conviction, with the State represented by Attorney General Raúl Torrez and Assistant Attorney General Eric Orona. Aarons appeared as counsel for the defendant-appellant and, in the contempt proceeding, pro se as respondent.
The Court acted on its own motion, issuing an order to show cause directing Aarons to appear in person on 21 August 2026 and 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 response thereto" (paragraph 1). Aarons appeared and presented argument that day (paragraph 2).
Admissions recorded
The order records five sets of admissions.
Aarons acknowledged, in his written response and in oral argument, that he used ChatGPT in preparing the brief in chief (paragraph 3).
He admitted that the brief contained (paragraph 4): false testimony from four wholly fabricated witnesses — Officer Michelle Amarillo, Officer Sanchez, Manal Al-Jibury and Teresa Marquez; false testimony from Danny Stanton that he had received threats from the defendant-appellant which he took seriously; false testimony from Linda Stanton about threats her husband received; false testimony from Mariah Chavez and from the fabricated Teresa Marquez regarding the shooter's clothing and appearance; and misrepresented 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. The defects are of two kinds: people who do not exist, and words attributed to people who do.
He admitted that he did not verify the factual claims or legal authority in the AI-generated brief before signing and filing it, and did not inform his client of that failure or that the brief contained multiple factual and legal misrepresentations (paragraph 5); and that he did not inform his client of the show-cause proceedings or provide copies of the show-cause pleadings (paragraph 6).
On those admissions the Court concluded that Aarons "demonstrated a lack of remorse and a lack of concern for his client" (paragraph 7).
Authority relied on
Paragraph 8 cites Rule 12-312(D) NMRA for the proposition that failure to comply with the briefing requirements of Rule 12-318 NMRA is grounds for sanctions including contempt. Paragraph 9 rests on the Court's inherent authority to regulate proceedings and discipline attorneys under its power of "superintending control over all inferior courts" in Article VI, Section 3 of the New Mexico Constitution, and on In re Neundorf, 1989-NMSC-052, ¶ 7, 108 N.M. 653, 777 P.2d 381, for the principle that in imposing discipline the Court relies "upon the steps necessary to insure the future protection of the public, the reputation of the profession, and the orderly administration of justice." The order cites no Rule of Professional Conduct and does not cite Formal Opinion 2024-004 of the State Bar of New Mexico's Ethics Advisory Committee, an advisory opinion of September 24, 2024 stating that a lawyer using generative AI to draft a court filing "must independently verify the accuracy and sufficiency of all research, citations, and analysis conducted by the AI tool" (State Bar of New Mexico Formal Ethics Advisory Opinion 2024-004 — Using Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law).
Chief Justice Julie J. Vargas and Justices Michael E. Vigil, C. Shannon Bacon, David K. Thomson and Briana H. Zamora concurred — the full court.
Disposition
| Paragraph | Order |
|---|---|
| 11 | Aarons found in direct contempt of court |
| 12 | The matter referred to the Disciplinary Board for further consideration |
| 13 | Aarons barred from appearing before the Supreme Court of New Mexico pending the outcome of the Disciplinary Board investigation and proceedings, if any |
| 14 | Following the Board's proceedings, the Court will make further determinations under the Rules Governing Discipline |
| 15 | The Law Office of the Public Defender appointed to represent the defendant-appellant, to assign counsel who shall enter an appearance forthwith |
| 16 | All briefing filed in the matter stricken |
| 17 | A new briefing order to issue after new defense counsel appears, with the case intended to be heard in the Court's 2026–2027 term |
| 18 | As a sanction for direct contempt, payment of $5,000 to the State Bar of New Mexico Client Protection Fund within thirty days, with written notification to the Court when paid |
| 19 | Disposition by nonprecedential order under Rule 12-405(B) NMRA |
The $5,000 is a directed payment to a client-protection fund rather than a fine to the court, and carries a thirty-day deadline and a reporting obligation. The appearance bar at paragraph 13 is the heavier of the two sanctions in practical effect and is not recorded in the located coverage.
Reception and related reporting
Reuters reported the order on 11 September 2026, recording the same docket posture, the $5,000 figure, the contempt finding, the disciplinary referral and the 21 August 2026 show-cause hearing. Its account adds two facts not in the order: that at the hearing Aarons said he had fed a computer-generated transcript and other case materials to the model presuming it would generate "a bulletproof summary," and that Justice C. Shannon Bacon told him the problem of lawyers relying on AI hallucinations "is an above-the-fold story every single day." Reuters also reports that the appeal was reassigned on 2 September 2026 to New Mexico public defender Kim Chavez Cook, who is not named in the order (Source: reuters.com).
Provenance
Captured on 2026-09-12, complete at 4 of 4 pages and all 20 numbered paragraphs plus caption, counsel block and signature block. The copy of record is a Thomson Reuters legal-documents mirror. Nine divergences between the order and the digest that first carried it are recorded in the raw file's ## Source-fidelity notes.
The capture's original provenance flag reasoned that because the order states on its face that it "was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports" and is disposed of by nonprecedential order, a copy on nmonesource.com or nmcourts.gov "is not expected to exist." That expectation is wrong. The order is published by the New Mexico Compilation Commission on NMOneSource as item 538584, under Supreme Court of New Mexico → Unreported Opinions, dated 09/09/2026 — a court-controlled host, located 2026-09-15 (nmonesource.com; PDF at nmonesource.com). Its text is identical to the Thomson Reuters capture and to the reproductions circulated by Justia (law.justia.com) and Ars Technica; four independent copies agree. Nonprecedential New Mexico dispositions do reach the Commission's public database.
The Commission's copy also settles the date question raised in the lead: NMOneSource lists the order as 09/09/2026, which corroborates the date the coverage gives and which the order's own extracted face does not carry.
Relationships
- supports: Legal Services — AI Deployment — a primary court document imposing sanctions for AI-fabricated filings in professional practice
- related: AI-Fabricated Citations — the pattern of fabricated authority and testimony in filings, and the sanctions imposed for it
- related: Sycophancy and Hallucination — fabrication as a model failure mode, here reaching a court record unverified
- related: AI Liability — professional responsibility for unverified machine output attributed to the signing attorney
- related: State Bar of New Mexico Formal Ethics Advisory Opinion 2024-004 — Using Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law — the State Bar ethics committee's 2024 advisory opinion requiring independent verification of AI-assisted court filings; not cited in the order
Sources
- Raw source:
Raw Sources/In re Stephen D. Aarons - Dispositional Order of Direct Contempt (N.M. Sup. Ct., No. S-1-SC-40845, 2026-09-09).md - Order PDF (Thomson Reuters mirror): fingfx.thomsonreuters.com
- Order, primary host (NM Compilation Commission / NMOneSource item 538584): nmonesource.com
- Reuters, "Lawyer cites fake witnesses in murder case and blames ChatGPT," 11 September 2026 (Source: reuters.com)