Part of the AI Regulation News hub.
New Mexico's Supreme Court has held an attorney in direct contempt and ordered him to pay 5,000 dollars for filing an AI-generated appellate brief that contained testimony from witnesses who do not exist
This desk has now covered roughly forty of these cases. This one is different in what was fabricated, and in the power the court reached for.
Bottom line: Binding on the respondent and entered 9 September 2026. The Court found direct contempt, ordered a 5,000 dollar payment within thirty days, struck all briefing, barred him from appearing before the Court pending the Disciplinary Board process, appointed the Public Defender for the appellant, and referred him to the Disciplinary Board. The order is expressly nonprecedential under Rule 12-405(B) NMRA.
Who this affects: Appellate and criminal defence practitioners admitted in New Mexico, the state Disciplinary Board that now holds the referral, and litigation risk partners anywhere whose firms rely on Rule 11 style sanction exposure as their mental model of AI filing risk.
Issue date: Entered 9 September 2026. The show cause hearing at which the respondent appeared was held on 21 August 2026, and the order records both dates separately.
What changed: A state supreme court used direct contempt, grounded in its constitutional power of superintending control, rather than litigation sanctions, and the fabricated material included witness testimony and a factual record, not only case citations.
Analysis: Three findings do work that citation cases usually do not reach: the respondent did not tell his client the brief contained falsehoods, he did not tell his client about the show cause proceedings, and the Court concluded he showed a lack of remorse and a lack of concern for his client.
Primary sources: Dispositional Order of Direct Contempt, No. S-1-SC-40845 (NM OneSource, New Mexico Compilation Commission) · Case record, State v. Sandoval, S-1-SC-40845
- Instrument (EN)
- Dispositional Order of Direct Contempt, State of New Mexico v. Oscar Renee Sandoval; In re Stephen D. Aarons
- Authority
- Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico, per curiam. Chief Justice Julie J. Vargas and Justices Michael E. Vigil, C. Shannon Bacon, David K. Thomson and Briana H. Zamora concurring
- Jurisdiction
- New Mexico, United States
- Status
- Entered and operative. Not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports
- Bindingness
- Binding on the respondent. Nonprecedential: the Court exercised its discretion under Rule 12-405(B) NMRA to dispose of the misrepresentation issues by order rather than formal opinion, and Rule 12-405 NMRA restricts citation of unpublished decisions
- Issue date / next deadline
- Entered 9 September 2026. The 5,000 dollar payment is ordered within thirty days of the date of the order, with written notice to the Court when paid
- Legal basis
- Rule 12-318 NMRA briefing requirements and Rule 12-312(D) NMRA; the Court's power of superintending control over all inferior courts under Article VI, Section 3 of the New Mexico Constitution; In re Neundorf, 1989-NMSC-052
- Number
- No. S-1-SC-40845
- Primary source
- https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmsc/en/538584/1/document.do
What was fabricated, and how the Court put it
The order records at paragraph 3 that the respondent acknowledged, in his written response and in oral argument, that he used the generative artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT in preparing the brief in chief he filed with the Court.
Paragraph 4 is where this case separates from the citation cases. The Court records that the respondent admitted the brief contained false testimony from wholly fabricated witnesses, and it names them: Officer Michelle Amarillo, Officer Sanchez, Manal Al-Jibury and Teresa Marquez. It goes further. It records false testimony attributed to Danny Stanton that he received threats from the defendant-appellant which he took seriously, false testimony attributed to Linda Stanton about the threats her husband received, and false testimony attributed to Mariah Chavez and to Teresa Marquez, whom the order marks in parentheses as a fabricated witness, about the shooter's clothing and appearance.
So two categories of fabrication sit in the same paragraph: witnesses who do not exist, and words put into the mouths of people who do. Only after that does the order reach misrepresented legal authority, in State v. Lopez, 2005-NMSC-018 and State v. Manus, 1979-NMSC-035.
Note the evidentiary posture. These are findings that the respondent admitted these things. The order does not separately narrate the Court's own verification exercise, and this piece does not claim one.
Direct contempt is a different instrument from Rule 11 sanctions
Paragraph 8 ties the conduct to the rules of appellate procedure: failure to comply with the briefing requirements in Rule 12-318 NMRA is grounds for sanctions, including contempt, with a see cite to Rule 12-312(D) NMRA.
Paragraph 9 then reaches past the rules entirely. The Court records that it has inherent authority to regulate proceedings in New Mexico courts and to discipline New Mexico attorneys under its power of "superintending control over all inferior courts", as set out in Article VI, Section 3 of the New Mexico Constitution, and that when imposing discipline it relies "upon the steps necessary to insure the future protection of the public, the reputation of the profession, and the orderly administration of justice", quoting In re Neundorf, 1989-NMSC-052.
Paragraph 11 is the holding in one line: the respondent is found in direct contempt of court. Most of the AI filing cases on this desk's record run through a sanctions rule, a costs order or a referral. This one runs through the contempt power of a state's highest court, sitting in its own case, exercising a constitutional supervisory authority over the bar. The practical consequence differs less than the source of the power does, but the source of the power is what a practitioner should notice.
The client findings, and the remorse finding
Paragraph 5 carries two admissions in one sentence, and the second is the one to read twice: that the respondent did not verify the factual claims and legal authority in his AI-generated brief before signing and filing it, and that he did not inform his client of this failure or that the brief in chief contained multiple factual and legal misrepresentations.
Paragraph 6 adds a separate admission: he did not inform his client of the order to show cause proceedings, and did not provide his client with copies of the show cause pleadings.
Paragraph 7 then records a conclusion rather than an admission. Having considered the response and the oral argument, the Court concludes that the respondent demonstrated a lack of remorse and a lack of concern for his client. An express finding of that kind is unusual on the face of an order of this length, and it sits immediately before the sanction paragraphs.
For a practitioner the transferable point is that the duty the Court weighed was not only the duty to the tribunal. It was the duty to tell the client what had happened. If a filing you signed turns out to carry AI-generated falsehoods, the disclosure question arrives in two directions at once.
The sanction stack, and the one clock in it
Paragraph 18 is the money. As a sanction for direct contempt, the respondent is ordered to pay five thousand dollars to the State Bar of New Mexico Client Protection Fund within thirty days of the date of the order, and to notify the Court in writing when payment is made. That is the only deadline in the document. The recipient is worth noting: a client protection fund, not the court's own treasury.
The rest is cumulative and immediate. Paragraph 12 refers the matter to the Disciplinary Board for further consideration. Paragraph 13 bars the respondent from appearing before the Supreme Court pending the outcome of that investigation and any proceedings. Paragraph 14 records that the Court will make further determinations after the Disciplinary Board process, in accordance with the Rules Governing Discipline, so this order is not the end of his exposure.
Paragraph 16 strikes all briefing filed in the matter. Paragraph 15 appoints the Law Office of the Public Defender to represent the defendant-appellant and directs that counsel enter an appearance forthwith. Paragraph 17 provides that a new briefing order will issue after new counsel appears, with the intention that the case be heard during the Court's 2026-2027 term. The appeal survives; the brief and the lawyer do not.
Nonprecedential, and what that costs the case
Paragraph 19 is explicit. The Court exercises its discretion under Rule 12-405(B) NMRA to dispose of the matter, to the extent it resolves the issues raised pertaining to the respondent's misrepresentations, by nonprecedential order rather than a formal opinion. The header on the filed document adds that the decision was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports and refers the reader to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on citing unpublished decisions.
State that plainly, because a lot of coverage will not. This order does not create New Mexico precedent on AI-assisted filings. It resolves one lawyer's conduct.
Its usefulness elsewhere is therefore descriptive rather than authoritative. It shows a state supreme court choosing contempt over sanctions, treating fabricated testimony as sitting inside the same conduct as fabricated citations, and weighing an attorney's silence toward his own client as part of the disposition. None of that binds a court in another jurisdiction, and we do not suggest it does.
The filed document also carries a standing caution that electronic decisions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Supreme Court.
What we did not verify
What we opened: the four page Dispositional Order of Direct Contempt in full, twice and from two independent sources. We first read it from the Justia mirror of the filed PDF, then located and read the copy published on NM OneSource, the platform operated by the New Mexico Compilation Commission, at item 538584 dated 09/09/2026 in the court's 2026 listing. The two texts match, and paragraphs 1 to 20 are sequential in both. We cite the Compilation Commission copy as the primary link. We note for the record that the Supreme Court's own site at supremecourt.nmcourts.gov returns a 404 at its opinions path and exposes no per-docket order listing we could reach, so the Compilation Commission copy is the closest thing to the court's own server that we obtained.
What we did not open: the brief in chief itself, the order to show cause, the respondent's written response, the recording or transcript of the 21 August 2026 hearing, the underlying criminal record in State v. Sandoval, State v. Lopez, State v. Manus, In re Neundorf, Rule 12-318, Rule 12-312(D) and Rule 12-405 NMRA in their own texts, and any Disciplinary Board file. We describe each of those only as this order describes them.
What we refuse to claim: we do not say the respondent has been disbarred, suspended or disciplined, because the order refers the matter to the Disciplinary Board and expressly leaves further determinations to a later stage. We do not say the bar on appearing is permanent, because it runs pending the outcome of that investigation and any proceedings. We do not say the Court verified the fabrications itself, because the order records them as the respondent's admissions. We do not say this is the first order of its kind in the United States or anywhere else, because the document does not say so and we did not test it. We do not treat the order as precedent, because paragraph 19 says it is not. Quotations are reproduced with ASCII punctuation in place of the typographic marks in the filed document, and we have not reproduced the em dash the order uses before the list of fabricated witnesses, which is a house typesetting convention and not a change to any word.
Informational analysis for working professionals, not legal advice. Confirm how any rule applies to your situation with qualified counsel.
If your firm's AI filing policy is built around checking that every citation resolves, this order is the argument for widening it. What was fabricated here was the record: witnesses who do not exist, and testimony attributed to people who do. A citation checker catches none of that. The second thing to take from it is the client limb. The Court weighed the failure to tell the client that the brief contained falsehoods, and the failure to tell the client about the show cause proceedings, as part of the disposition. Decide now who in your firm makes that call, and how fast.
Source File
https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmsc/en/538584/1/document.do
Open the order and confirm five things: the ChatGPT acknowledgement at paragraph 3, the fabricated witnesses and attributed false testimony at paragraph 4, the client non-disclosure admission at paragraph 5 and the lack of remorse conclusion at paragraph 7, the superintending control basis at paragraph 9, and the nonprecedential election under Rule 12-405(B) NMRA at paragraph 19.
Respondent admitted to the Court that he did not verify the factual claims and legal authority in his AI-generated brief before signing it and filing it with the Court, and that he did not inform his client of this failure or that the brief in chief contained multiple factual and legal misrepresentations ยท Supreme Court of New Mexico, Dispositional Order of Direct Contempt, No. S-1-SC-40845, paragraph 5, 9 September 2026
FAQ
What makes this different from the other AI citation sanction cases?
Two things. The fabricated material included witness testimony and a factual record, not only case citations: the order names four witnesses it records as wholly fabricated and describes testimony attributed to real people that the respondent admitted was false. And the mechanism is direct contempt under the Court's constitutional power of superintending control, rather than a litigation sanctions rule.
Has the lawyer been suspended or disbarred?
No. The order finds direct contempt, orders a 5,000 dollar payment to the State Bar of New Mexico Client Protection Fund within thirty days, and refers the matter to the Disciplinary Board. It bars him from appearing before the Supreme Court pending the outcome of that investigation and any proceedings, and says the Court will make further determinations afterwards under the Rules Governing Discipline.
Is this precedent other New Mexico courts have to follow?
No. At paragraph 19 the Court exercised its discretion under Rule 12-405(B) NMRA to dispose of the misrepresentation issues by nonprecedential order rather than a formal opinion, and the filed document states it was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports, with Rule 12-405 NMRA restricting citation of unpublished decisions.
What happens to the client's appeal?
It continues. All briefing was stricken, the Law Office of the Public Defender was appointed to represent the defendant-appellant with counsel to enter an appearance forthwith, and a new briefing order is to issue once new counsel appears, with the intention that the case be heard during the Court's 2026-2027 term.
Related briefings
Sponsored Training
Practical AI training for regulated professionals, built around verification, documentation and a defensible process. See the courses.