Fletcher v. Experian Information Solutions & Bridgecrest Credit Company

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

Proposed Rule, https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/default-source/default- document-library/court-decision-on-proposed-rule.pdf?sfvrsn=5967c92d_2 (last visited Feb. 18, 2026). In doing so, we concluded that existing rules were sufficient to deter misconduct related to generative AI use, without the need for a rule specific to generative AI. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46(c), for instance, allows a court of appeals, after notice and an opportunity to show cause, to “discipline an attorney who practices before it for conduct unbecoming a member of the bar or for failure to comply with any court rule.” We also have “inherent power to impose sanctions for abuse of the judicial process.” Anderson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 953 F.3d 311, 315 (5th Cir. 2020). Other courts have noted that submitting a brief riddled with fabricated quotations and assertions is such an abuse. See Park v. Kim, 91 F.4th 610, 615 (2d Cir. 2024) (referring attorney to the Second Circuit’s Grievance Panel under 2d Cir. R. 46.2 for failing to make inquiry into the validity of her argument). Regrettably, despite numerous news stories, CLE presentations, scholarly articles, and judicial entreaties, AI-hallucinated case citations have increasingly become an even greater problem in our courts, and the problem shows no sign of abating. Damien Charlotin, a French lawyer and data scientist, maintains a database that tracks court orders related to AI- hallucinated content. AI Hallucination Cases, Damien Charlotin, https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations (last visited Feb. 18, 2026). As of the date of this order, Charlotin has identified 239 cases of hallucination by lawyers in the United States. Id.2 Within our circuit, district courts have shouldered the burden of addressing AI hallucinations in court _____________________ 2 This figure excludes hallucinations introduced by pro se litigants and judges. 4 Case: 25-20086 Document: 89-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/18/2026 No. 25-20086 filings.3 It is a problem that is getting worse—not better. If it were ever an excuse to plead ignorance of the risks of using generative AI to draft a brief without verifying its output, it is certainly no longer so. To ethically use generative AI in the practice of law—which we do not dispute can be helpful if done properly and carefully—a lawyer must “ensure that the legal propositions and authority generated are trustworthy.” ByoPlanet Int’l, LLC v. Johansson, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1341, 1347 (S.D. Fla. 2025). Failure to do so “abdicate[s] one’s duty, waste[s] legal resources, and lower[s] the public’s respect for the legal profession and judicial proceedings.” Id. II A A brief recitation of the facts underlying this case is helpful. This is an appeal of a sanctions award against Shawn Jaffer, plaintiff’s counsel in the

Authorities cited in the passage: Brief cited Edwards v. General Motors Corp. for the proposition that sua sponte sanctions implicate de novo review · Brief asserted Lewis v. Brown & Root reversed · Anderson v. Wells Fargo Bank · Other courts have noted that submitting a brief riddled with fabricated quotations and assertions is such an abuse. See Park v. Kim · LLC v. Johansson · Cir. R. 46.2