Georgia Supreme Court Suspends Prosecutor Over AI Misuse

A Georgia prosecutor is facing consequences after submitting legal documents filled with AI-generated citations that either misidentified or entirely fabricated case references.

The questionable documents were filed during the appeal process of a woman convicted of murder following a botched citizen’s arrest.

In December 2023, 25-year-old Hannah Payne was found guilty on two counts of felony murder, three counts of weapon possession during a crime, and charged with malice murder, aggravated assault, and false imprisonment in connection to the death of 62-year-old Kenneth Herring in May 2019.

Payne received a life sentence, with the possibility of parole after serving a minimum of 43 years in prison.

Her appeal, which claimed she received ineffective legal representation, was denied when her motion for a new trial was rejected late in the summer of 2025. The case then advanced to the Supreme Court of Georgia in March. During oral arguments, the court identified the flawed filings and demanded clarification from the prosecution.

These explanations were provided through “a supplemental brief and affidavit” where Clayton County Assistant District Attorney Deborah Leslie admitted to utilizing AI software to compose the state’s reply briefs as well as the order the district court used to reject Payne’s motion for a new trial. This was highlighted in an eight-page opinion by the high court, which imposed sanctions as a result.

In the high court’s terms, the AI software initially resulted in “a brief that contained non-existent cases and cases that do not stand for the proposition asserted in the brief.” Then the mistakes compounded.

“In an order largely prepared by ADA Leslie, the trial court denied Payne’s motion for new trial,” the opinion explains. “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.”

On top of the mea culpas, the prosecutor was hesitant to admit fault when quizzed by the justices about the order she prepared for the trial court, a footnote in the opinion recalls.

“No, your honor, I do not believe so, they were not. I did prepare an order,” Leslie said in response to a question. “That order was revised.”

But the evidence was incontrovertible.

“When this Court pointed out that these same cases were cited in the State’s briefing opposing Payne’s motion for new trial, ADA Leslie offered to provide this Court with supplemental briefing on this issue,” the opinion goes on.

In its initial order after oral argument, the high court directed Leslie to take stock of “nine case citations that either do not exist or do not stand for the propositions for which they are cited.”

This number turned out to be an undercount.

The opinion explains the voluble mistakes at length:

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. ADA Leslie also withdrew reliance on nine authorities cited in the State’s December 16, 2025, appellate brief before this Court which she stated “were cited for propositions not supported by the actual holdings of those decisions; case citations that do not correspond to existing Georgia or federal precedent; and/or case quotations that do not accurately reflect the language of the cited opinions[.]”

And for that level of mistaken citation, Justice Benjamin A. Land had particularly harsh words for both Leslie and her office.

“These filings, as well as the trial court’s order, contain multiple case citations which either do not exist, or which exist but do not support the propositions of law for which they are cited,” the opinion continues. “While we have no rule against the responsible use of artificial intelligence software by attorneys, citing cases that do not exist or do not support the proposition for which they are cited is a violation of this Court’s rules and falls far beneath the conduct we expect from Georgia lawyers.”

To that end, Leslie and the Clayton County District Attorney’s Office were formally admonished – though this public censure does not apply to the district attorney individually.

Additionally, Leslie herself is suspended from practicing before the Georgia Supreme Court for six months. To be reinstated, she must complete 12 hours of additional continuing legal education that focuses on “the proper use of artificial intelligence software in the legal system.”

“Given the substantial number of wholly inaccurate case citations found in these filings, and the fact that counsel for the State did not independently verify the accuracy of these citations, the matter poses a serious concern for us and for the integrity of these proceedings and calls for us to exercise our inherent authority to control these proceedings in the furtherance of justice, as well as the authority granted to us by Supreme Court Rule 7 to sanction attorneys who violate our rules,” Land explains.

As for Payne’s own case, the previous order denying her motion for a new trial has been vacated and remanded. Now, the trial court must prepare and issue its own order on the matter. And, to somewhat belabor the point, the new order “shall not contain any fictitious or misattributed case citations” and “shall not be prepared by counsel for either party.”

Finally, the court granted a motion to clarify filed by Payne, directing the state to produce discovery of any communications with the trial court about the since-shelved order denying the new trial motion. In the event such communications exist, those documents must be provided to the high court and Payne’s attorneys “without delay.”