Fletcher v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 5th Cir. · Louisiana bar guidance , Mississippi bar guidance , Texas bar guidance
Verified October 1, 2026
- Citation
- Fletcher v. Experian Info. Sols., No. 25-20086 (5th Cir. Feb. 18, 2026)
- Decided
- February 18, 2026
Summary
Fair Credit Reporting Act appeal. The district court awarded fees as sanctions against plaintiff's trial counsel and his firm: $20,038.40 to Bridgecrest under Rule 11 (with the plaintiff jointly and severally liable) and $13,059.18 to Experian under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. In an unpublished opinion of January 6, 2026, the Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded that sanctions order (merits op. at 2, 5). Separately, plaintiff's appellate counsel filed a reply brief that the court's show-cause order said contained 16 fabricated quotations and 5 additional serious misrepresentations of law or fact (sanctions op. at 6). Counsel first said she had 'relied on publicly available versions of the cases' (id. at 10) and later admitted using AI only to 'help organize and structure [her] arguments'; the court found that account not credible and found that she used AI to draft a substantial portion, if not all, of the reply brief (id. at 12-13).
- AI tool:
- Generative AI (unspecified)
- Sanction amount:
- $2,500
What sanction did the court impose?
The Fifth Circuit ordered appellate counsel to pay the clerk a $2,500 sanction within 30 days (sanctions op. at 2), relying on Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46(c) and its inherent power (id. at 13-15). The order rests on two findings: that counsel used AI to draft the reply brief and did not verify it, and that she was not forthcoming in her show-cause response (id. at 2). The court stated that had counsel 'accepted responsibility and been more forthcoming, it is likely that the court would have imposed lesser sanctions' (id. at 13). Chief Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod wrote for the panel of Chief Judge Elrod and Judges Smith and Wilson (id. at 1).
Why does Fletcher v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. matter for law firms using AI?
Fletcher ties the size of an appellate AI sanction to counsel’s conduct after the show-cause order. The court rested the $2,500 sanction on two findings, the unverified AI-drafted reply brief and a show-cause response that was not forthcoming, and said a more forthcoming response would likely have produced a lesser sanction (sanctions op. at 2, 13). It also saw no need for an AI-specific rule: “Modern generative AI may be a new technology, but the same sanctions rules apply, and the rules we have are well equipped to handle these types of cases” (id. at 13). For attorneys in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, the opinion does not bar AI use; it holds the signing lawyer to every quotation and citation and treats an incomplete show-cause response as a reason for a larger sanction.