So there are pros and cons to using generative AI when writing briefs.

• Pro: The chance to save entire minutes when creating work product!

• Con: The possibility of career-ending sanctions.

Flip a coin, I guess.

Whatever the decision process may have been in this case, if any, it came out the wrong way. This can be gathered from the first page of the opinion below, which says it it is issued in the matter of In Re [Attorney Name] and has the title, “DISPOSITIONAL ORDER OF DIRECT CONTEMPT.”

As always, I suggest you structure your practice to avoid this sort of thing.

The opinion explains that the court issued an order to show cause requiring a defendant’s attorney to explain why he should not be held in contempt for filing a brief that appeared to be generated by AI. That appeared to be so, the court said, because pretty much everything in it was made up:

[R]espondent admitted to the Court that the brief … contained false testimony from wholly fabricated witnesses Officer Michelle Amarillo, Officer Sanchez, Manal Al-Jibury, and Teresa Marquez; false testimony from Danny Stanton that he received threats, which he took seriously, from Defendant-Appellant; false testimony from Linda Stanton about the threats her husband received; false testimony from Mariah Chavez and Teresa Marquez (fabricated witness) 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[.]

Almost every day now, someone is getting sanctioned for filing a brief with “hallucinated” case law made up by their helpful computer friends, but I think this might be the first case I’ve seen where an AI fabricated testimony from multiple fabricated witnesses. They keep telling us their products are improving exponentially, so maybe this is what they mean?

Anyway, this lawyer admitted (1) he used ChatGPT to write the brief; (2) it made everything up; (3) he didn’t verify what it wrote before signing and filing; and (4) he didn’t tell his client about any of this, including the show-cause proceedings. The opinion doesn’t tell us what he said at oral argument, only that having considered it, the court concluded “that Respondent demonstrated a lack of remorse and a lack of concern for his client[.]” Maybe he was counting on ChatGPT to fabricate those things for him, too, but if so he didn’t bring it along for the hearing.

Read on to page three for an entertaining series of IT IS ORDERED and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED paragraphs, which, among other things, removed the attorney from the case, barred him from appearing in that court pending review by a disciplinary board, and fined him $5,000.

On the other hand, he may have saved a little time by using AI.