Georgia High Court Admonishes D.A.’s Office, Over “Vehement” Dissent, for Role in AI Hallucinations in Court Order

From Payne v. State, decided last week, in an opinion by Justice Benjamin Land:

Hannah Payne was sentenced to life in prison plus 13 years for the murder and false imprisonment of Kenneth Herring and the possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. In response to Payne’s motion for new trial, the assistant district attorney assigned to the case, Deborah Leslie, filed a brief that contained non-existent cases and cases that do not stand for the proposition asserted in the brief.

In an order largely prepared by ADA Leslie, the trial court denied Payne’s motion for new trial. That order contained citations to non-existent cases and cases that do not stand for the proposition asserted in the order.

In response to Payne’s appeal, ADA Leslie once again cited cases that do not stand for the proposition asserted. As a result of these filings, we have been sidetracked from our obligation of resolving the merits of Payne’s appeal and have had to devote significant time and resources to the discovery of this misconduct and deciding what to do about it. As outlined below, we admonish ADA Leslie and the Clayton County District Attorney’s office; we sanction ADA Leslie and suspend her privilege to practice in our Court; and we vacate the trial court’s order denying Payne’s motion for new trial and remand the case to the trial court with instruction that it issue a new order that does not contain the citation of fake cases or other misattributed case citations….

[On appeal,] ADA Leslie acknowledged that the case citations generated by artificial intelligence software were not independently verified before inclusion in the State’s briefs or proposed order and represented that she had implemented safeguards to ensure that fictitious or misattributed authorities would not appear in any future filings. In addition to the nine cases listed in this Court’s March 20, 2025, order, ADA Leslie identified twelve additional cases in her briefing before the trial court that she acknowledges were generated by artificial intelligence software, were not independently verified, and do not stand for the propositions for which they were offered….

We admonish ADA Leslie and the Clayton County District Attorney’s Office for failing to verify the accuracy of case citations and then including a substantial number of inaccurate case citations in their filings before this Court and the trial court. See Supreme Court Rule 7 (“Parties and counsel are responsible for ensuring that their filings with the Court, including briefs, shall be carefully checked for truthfulness and accuracy as the rules already require.”).

{We acknowledge the Clayton County District Attorney’s March 27, 2026, letter to this Court, in which the District Attorney apologized for the post-trial filings in this case, stated that her office would be “expanding [its] internet and social media use policies to specifically address the use of artificial intelligence,” and indicated that “strict disciplinary action ha[d] been taken against” ADA Leslie. The dissent relies upon this letter in support of its position that we should not admonish the District Attorney. First, we have not admonished the District Attorney individually but rather admonished her office, since ADA Leslie submitted the filings at issue on behalf of that office. Second, we are puzzled by the dissent’s reference to the District Attorney as the “elected District Attorney.” All district attorneys in Georgia are elected, and that status has no bearing on their obligations to the courts in which they practice or our obligations when faced with misconduct arising out of their offices.} …

We hereby suspend ADA Deborah Leslie’s privilege to practice before the Supreme Court of Georgia for six months…. {The sanctions imposed by this Court are case-specific and based on the information and material in the record. Nothing stated herein shall be construed to affect, in any manner, any disciplinary proceedings that may be brought by the State Bar of Georgia, the Judicial Qualifications Commission, or any other entity.} …

Because the trial court’s September 12, 2025, order denying Payne’s motion for new trial contains numerous fictitious or misattributed case citations, we hereby vacate the trial court’s order and remand the case to the trial court with instructions that it prepare and issue a new order on Payne’s motion for new trial. The trial court’s order shall not contain any fictitious or misattributed case citations, and given the unfortunate circumstances that have led us to this point, the trial court’s order shall not be prepared by counsel for either party.

We strongly encourage trial courts to carefully review proposed orders with the understanding that artificial intelligence software, with all of its potential risks and benefits, may have been used to prepare such proposed orders….

Justice Shawn Ellen LaGrua, joined by Justice Verda Colvin, dissented “as to the admonishment of the elected Clayton County District Attorney”:

In this opinion, the majority admonishes and sanctions the assistant district attorney who represents the State in this case, gives direction to the presiding judge regarding the issuance of a new order, and admonishes the elected District Attorney. While I recognize that the District Attorney’s name appears on the briefs and she ultimately bears responsibility for the actions of those who work for her, I also understand that she must be able to trust and rely upon her staff to do their jobs ethically and professionally. Every assistant district attorney takes an oath to that effect.

In this instance, the District Attorney sent a lengthy letter to this Court, copied to opposing counsel, apologizing for the conduct of the assistant district attorney and outlining the severe sanctions imposed on that attorney for her actions in this case. Additionally, the District Attorney assured this Court that she is immediately implementing policies and procedures to keep this from happening in the future. We have absolutely no reason to doubt the veracity of that letter. And I find such proactive disciplinary and preventative measures to be more than sufficient under the circumstances.

Based on the foregoing, I vehemently decline to admonish the elected Clayton County District Attorney and respectfully dissent to that portion of the majority opinion.