Attorney AI use
Fletcher v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
An AI-assisted reply included 16 fabricated quotations and five serious misrepresentations, followed by a misleading show-cause response.
$2,500 personal sanction01
Case background
Material facts
Appellate counsel used Casetext, now part of CoCounsel, and vLex while preparing a reply brief. The filed brief contained 16 fabricated quotations and at least five inaccurate citations or assertions. When the court ordered an explanation, counsel initially attributed the problems to public case repositories and did not disclose the use of AI. The court found that explanation misleading and concluded that counsel had not verified the AI-generated content.
02
The decision
The court’s ruling
The Fifth Circuit found “that counsel used artificial intelligence to draft a substantial portion, if not all, of her reply brief and then failed to verify the accuracy of the content generated.” (Slip op. at 2.) It also found that counsel was not forthcoming in response to the show-cause order. The court imposed a $2,500 personal sanction under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46(c) and its inherent authority.
Why it matters
What the decision means
The products’ connection to established legal research providers did not excuse the lack of verification. Fabricated quotations can appear polished and plausible. Counsel’s evasive response created an additional candor problem.
Limit of the ruling. A separate merits opinion addressed sanctions against different counsel; this disciplinary opinion concerns appellate counsel.
Primary reading