Jacobs v. Timberlake
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit · La. App. 5 Cir. · Louisiana bar guidance
Conduct
Here relator's writ application cited a Harvey v. Harvey decision that neither respondent nor the court could locate; a supplemental brief dropped it without explanation.
Consequence
Writ denied as moot; on its own motion the panel ordered counsel to show cause why she should not be held in contempt and to address any generative AI use.
Lesson
Here a quiet corrective filing did not end the matter: the court ordered counsel to produce the case or explain the citation's source.
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Jacobs v. Timberlake, No. 26-C-184 (La. App. 5 Cir. May 12, 2026) (writ denied as moot; rule to show cause ordered)
- Filing date
- May 12, 2026
Summary
In an interstate custody dispute, relator Courtney Jacobs sought supervisory review of the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court's setting of a hearing on her petition to make Virginia custody orders executory in Louisiana and her application for a civil warrant for the return of the minor child. On May 8, 2026, respondent Michelle Timberlake moved for an extension of time to oppose, asserting that relator's counsel had cited authority respondent could not verify: "Harvey v. Harvey, 13-0253 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/30/13), 127 So.3d 156." Respondent represented that a search by party name and docket number did not locate the case and that the docket-number format did not appear consistent with the Fourth Circuit's numbering conventions. The Fifth Circuit stated that it "has likewise been unable to locate or verify whether Harvey v. Harvey [...] exists." After respondent raised the issue, relator filed a supplemental and amending brief to "correct the citation," but, the court noted, that brief "does not explain why Relator removed the citation to the Harvey case referenced above."
- AI tool:
- Not determined (the court ordered counsel to address "whether any generative artificial intelligence tool was used" in preparing the writ application; the order makes no finding of AI use and names no tool)
- Amount or terms:
- None imposed in the May 12, 2026 order; rule to show cause, by brief, why relator's counsel should not be held in contempt under La. C.C.P. art. 224(4)
What is the current procedural posture?
The panel denied the writ application as moot, because the trial court had held the hearing on May 7, 2026, granted the petition that day, and granted the civil warrant on May 12, 2026. On its own motion, the court then ordered relator's counsel, Camille Patti (Bar Roll Number 38572), to show cause, by brief only, why she should not be held in contempt under La. C.C.P. art. 224(4). The brief was due not less than 48 hours after receipt of the order or by Monday, May 18, 2026, whichever was later. It had to either produce a copy of the Harvey decision or explain the source of the citation and whether it is erroneous, and it had to address whether any generative artificial intelligence tool was used in preparing the writ application and, if so, what steps counsel took to verify the existence and validity of the authorities cited. A footnote quotes La. C.C.P. art. 225(A) on the procedure for constructive contempt of a court of appeal, including the right to request an oral hearing. No ruling on the rule to show cause had been located as of 2026-09-30.
Why does Jacobs v. Timberlake matter for law firms using AI?
Jacobs v. Timberlake shows an appellate court acting on a citation problem after the underlying dispute had gone away. The writ application became moot once the trial court granted relator’s petition and civil warrant, and the panel denied it on that ground. It then issued a rule to show cause “on our own motion,” so the citation question outlived the writ.
The court’s statements are carefully limited. It recounted the respondent’s representations about the Harvey citation and stated that it “has likewise been unable to locate or verify whether” the case exists. It did not describe the citation as fabricated and made no finding that artificial intelligence was involved. Instead it framed the questions for counsel: produce the opinion, or “explain the source of the citation and whether the citation is erroneous,” and state “whether any generative artificial intelligence tool was used in the preparation of the instant writ application and, if so, what steps Counsel took to verify the existence and validity of the legal authorities cited therein.”
The vehicle is contempt under the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure rather than a sanctions rule, and the court quoted art. 225(A)‘s procedure for constructive contempt of a court of appeal, which provides for a show-cause brief and an oral hearing on request. The court also noted the relator’s response to the challenge: the supplemental and amending brief removed the citation to “correct” it but did not explain why. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that, in this order, withdrawing a challenged authority without an explanation was followed by a court-ordered account of where the citation came from.
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- Document the correction step when a cited authority is challenged. Here the supplemental brief removed the Harvey citation without saying why, and the court noted that omission before issuing its rule to show cause.
- Verify authorities in writ applications before filing. The court issued its rule on its own motion even though the writ itself was moot.
- Review whether filings can be traced to their research sources. The rule required counsel either to produce the cited opinion or explain where the citation came from, and to describe any verification steps if generative AI was used.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI use is not established. The order directs counsel to address whether a generative AI tool was used; it makes no finding and records no admission. The AI attribution in the Charlotin tracker is an inference.
- Outcome of the rule to show cause: the Fifth Circuit's Case Search and Decision Search, each queried by case number 26-C-184 on 2026-09-30, list only the May 12, 2026 'Writ Denied' disposition. Whether counsel responded, and whether the court held her in contempt or discharged the rule, was not located.
- That Harvey v. Harvey does not exist: the court states only that it was 'unable to locate or verify whether' the case exists; respondent's statements about the docket-number format are respondent's representations as recounted in the order.