Lawyer Sanctioned for Fake AI Cases in Murder Appeal

A New Mexico lawyer was held in direct contempt in a murder appeal when AI invented witnesses that did not exist. He had 40 years of practice... apparently he didn't have 40 minutes to do a substantive review of the pleadings before he signed and filed them with the court... But the court didn't stop at a fine. It reached for one of the heaviest hammers a court owns. And all five justices swung it together.

Hey everybody! Thanks for joining us on Sanctioned for AI. My name is Lucy Hatchett. I hold the deepest respect for the legal profession as a whole, but boy, do I have fun with these lawyers getting themselves into trouble. So... this is my first show. Bear with me, I'm still finding the camera. I definitely overdressed. First show nerves. They told me to just be myself. I'm still figuring out what that looks like on television. Full disclosure: everything I know about courtroom drama, I learned from TV. I was a huge Boston Legal fan. So if I seem a little too entertained by all of this... that's why.

Here's what we're doing today. First, what the court did to him, because it went way past a fine. Second, what was actually in that brief, because you will not believe it. And third, the new rule every lawyer needs to hear: in 2026, “I didn't know AI makes things up” is not a defense. Not anymore.

Let's start with what the court did, because this is where it stops being a funny AI story. The New Mexico Supreme Court held him in direct contempt. Now, contempt is not a fine for a sloppy brief. Contempt is the court saying your filing was an offense against the court itself. The order came down September 9th. Per curiam, which means from the whole court, with all five justices concurring. And it did six things. One: it found him in direct contempt of court. Two: it ordered him to pay $5,000 to the Client Protection Fund within 30 days. Three: it referred him to the disciplinary board for investigation. Four: it barred him from appearing before the court until the discipline case resolves. Five: it struck every page of his briefing, erased, like it never existed. Six: it appointed the public defender to take over his client's appeal. And the order says why, in the court's own words. He quote, “demonstrated a lack of remorse and a lack of concern for his client,” end quote. Read that again. A lack of concern for his client. In a murder appeal.

And here's the thing about the court's power that most non-lawyers miss. Courts don't need a rulebook violation to do this. The order says the court was acting under its inherent authority: quote, “superintending control over all inferior courts,” end quote, to protect the public, the reputation of the profession, and the orderly administration of justice. Translation: when a filing is this far gone, the court doesn't look up the penalty. It invents one. But a fine and a stern order aren't the scary part. The scary part is what was in the brief. So what did he file?

Last year he agreed to take over a murder appeal. His client was serving a life sentence. And instead of reading the trial record, he asked ChatGPT to summarize it. Then he signed the summary and filed it with the highest court in New Mexico. He later admitted he never verified a word of it before he signed it and filed it. Not one witness. Not one quote. Not one case. I worked reception at a criminal defense firm in Boston for a few seasons, and let me tell you, even the receptionist reads the filing before it goes out. And here is what the AI gave him. Two police officers who do not exist, with testimony they never gave. Two more witnesses, invented from thin air. Then it took real witnesses and rewrote their testimony: threats the defendant supposedly made, which never happened, and a description of what the shooter was wearing, made up stitch by stitch. And for good measure, it misrepresented two real cases. Real cases, wrong law.

Therefore this was not a research hallucination. Nobody is talking about fake citations here. And that's what makes this case different from almost every other AI sanctions story. The usual version goes like this: a brief cites a case that doesn't exist, the other side can't find it, the judge is annoyed, somebody pays a fine. This one skipped past citations entirely and went straight to inventing the facts of a murder. The AI invented evidence, in a murder appeal, and a lawyer filed it as the record.

And there's one more detail, and it's the worst one. He never told his client. Not that the brief was AI-generated. Not that it was full of invented testimony. Not even that the court had ordered him to appear in person and explain himself. The order says so twice: he didn't inform his client of the failure, and he didn't inform his client of the contempt proceedings. His client was serving life, and his lawyer kept him in the dark while the whole thing burned down.

On August 21st, he stood before the court in person to explain himself. One of the justices asked him, in essence: do you follow the news at all? Because AI inventing things in court filings has been headline after headline for years. He conceded his own, quote, “stupidity,” end quote. He said he assumed the software would produce a reliable summary. He called it an honest mistake. The court was not moved. And that's why it was direct contempt, not just sanctions. Sanctions punish a bad filing. Contempt says you disrespected this court. So the court issued a show-cause order, hauled him in in person, and entered a dispositional order of direct contempt.

Therefore here's the rule, and it's the whole channel in one sentence. In 2026, “I didn't know AI hallucinates” is not a defense. The court treated it as inexcusable. Which means the duty is now personal and total. Every witness: real? Every quote: in the transcript, page and line? Every case: says what you say it says? And when you take over somebody else's appeal, you budget the hours and read the trial transcript yourself. There is no shortcut through the record. No summarizer, no assistant, no software gets to meet your client for you. Forty years of practice didn't save him. The software didn't save him. The only thing that saves you is reading the file.

That's our first case. A murder appeal, invented witnesses, and a lawyer who filed a robot's rough draft with the state supreme court. If you know a lawyer who lets AI write their filings, send them this video. Lovingly. And subscribe, because there's a new one every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and the lawyers keep giving us material. I'm Lucy Hatchett. Thanks for joining us on Sanctioned for AI. Next time, the cover-up is worse than the crime.