State v. Sandoval (In re Stephen D. Aarons)

What sanction did the court impose?

By a per curiam dispositional order of direct contempt, dated September 9, 2026 on NMOneSource, with all five justices concurring, the Court found Aarons in direct contempt of court and ordered him to pay $5,000 to the State Bar of New Mexico Client Protection Fund within thirty days as the contempt sanction. It referred him to the Disciplinary Board, barred him from appearing before the Court pending the outcome of any disciplinary investigation and proceedings, and said it would make further determinations under the Rules Governing Discipline afterward. On the appeal itself, the Court appointed the Law Office of the Public Defender to represent the defendant, struck all briefing filed in the matter, and directed that a new briefing order issue once new counsel appears, with the intention that the case be heard during the Court's 2026-2027 term. Aarons must notify the Court in writing when the $5,000 is paid. The Court cited Rule 12-318 NMRA (briefing requirements), Rule 12-312(D) NMRA (sanctions, including contempt), and its superintending control under Article VI, Section 3 of the New Mexico Constitution, and chose to proceed by nonprecedential order under Rule 12-405(B) NMRA.

Why does State v. Sandoval (In re Stephen D. Aarons) matter for law firms using AI?

The dispositional order is short, and its recitals about the brief rest on Aarons’s own admissions. Aarons acknowledged in his written response and at the August 21, 2026 hearing that he used ChatGPT to prepare the brief in chief. He admitted to the Court that the brief attributed testimony to four witnesses who do not exist and misstated what named witnesses said, and that he signed and filed it without verifying either the facts or the law. The Court did not have to decide how the errors arose. It decided what to do about a lawyer who filed them and, by his own admission, did not tell his client.

The Court recorded that point alongside its conclusion that Aarons “demonstrated a lack of remorse and a lack of concern for his client,” and the order reaches beyond a fine: a finding of direct contempt, a referral to the Disciplinary Board, a bar on appearing before the Court while that process runs, and a statement that the Court will make “further determinations regarding Respondent” under the Rules Governing Discipline afterward. The $5,000 goes to the State Bar’s Client Protection Fund rather than to the opposing party.

The case is also an example of hallucination reaching the record rather than the law. Beyond the two misstated precedents, the problem here was testimony the brief falsely attributed to witnesses, including testimony about the shooter’s clothing and appearance, and testimony from witnesses who do not exist. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider whether their verification steps cover factual assertions about the record, not only legal authority, when a generative tool has been used to summarize a transcript or draft a statement of facts.