The Fifth Circuit recently issued a sharp warning to lawyers who use generative AI in federal appellate practice. In Fletcher v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (opinion below), the court sanctioned appellate counsel after finding that a reply brief contained fabricated quotations, inaccurate citations, and false factual assertions. The court concluded that counsel used generative AI to draft a substantial portion of the brief and failed to verify the accuracy of the resulting legal and factual statements before filing it.
What makes the order especially important is that the court did not treat this as a technology problem. It treated it as a lawyering problem. The Fifth Circuit made clear that AI can be a useful tool, but it does not reduce a lawyer’s professional duties. A lawyer remains responsible for every quotation, citation, and factual representation submitted to the court. In other words, the problem was not the use of AI itself; the problem was the submission of unverified and false material in a signed brief.
The court also focused on counsel’s response after the errors came to light. It had issued a show-cause order identifying numerous fabricated quotations and other serious misrepresentations. The court found counsel’s explanations vague and not credible, and it emphasized what it viewed as a lack of candor in responding to direct questions about how the brief was prepared and whether the cited material had been checked. That aspect of the order matters because it shows the sanction was based not only on the defective brief, but also on the attorney’s handling of the issue once the court raised it.
The sanction itself was monetary, but the larger significance is professional and institutional. The Fifth Circuit relied on existing disciplinary authority and its inherent power to police abuses of the judicial process, signaling that courts do not need a new AI-specific rule to address this kind of misconduct. The lesson for lawyers is simple and immediate: if you use AI in drafting, you must verify everything before filing. Courts may tolerate new tools, but they will not tolerate fabricated authority, inaccurate quotations, or evasive answers.
