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 April 24, 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 sanctioned plaintiff's counsel $33,000 for insufficient pre-suit investigation. On appeal, counsel filed a reply brief containing 16 fabricated quotations and 5 additional serious misrepresentations of law or fact. Counsel admitted relying on a generative AI tool to draft portions of the brief but claimed to have relied on 'publicly available versions of the cases.' When confronted by the court's show-cause order, counsel's responses were evasive.
- AI tool:
- Generative AI (unspecified)
- Sanction amount:
- $2,500
What sanction did the court impose?
The Fifth Circuit sanctioned counsel $2,500 under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46(c) and the court's inherent authority. Chief Judge Jennifer Elrod (joined by Judges Jerry Smith and Cory Wilson) noted that had counsel accepted responsibility and been forthcoming, lesser sanctions likely would have been imposed. The opinion emphasizes that attorneys remain responsible for every quotation, citation, and factual representation submitted to the court, and recommends using specialized legal research tools rather than general-purpose LLMs.
Why does Fletcher v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. matter for law firms using AI?
Fletcher is the first Fifth Circuit AI-sanctions opinion to tie the size of the penalty directly to counsel’s posture in front of the show-cause panel. Chief Judge Elrod wrote that more candor about the AI use and the 16 fabricated quotations would have produced a smaller sanction; the evasive responses to the OSC were what justified the $2,500 award under Rule 46(c) and the court’s inherent authority. The opinion also recommends specialized legal-research tools over general-purpose LLMs. The practical line for attorneys in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas: AI use is allowed, every citation is the lawyer’s to verify, and stonewalling the court compounds the sanction rather than mitigating it.