The Hydra of Artificial Intelligence: Fifth Circuit Sanctions Attorney in Use of AI Hallucinations
Fletcher v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 4834 *; 2026 LX 90593 (5th Cir. Feb. 18, 2026).
By Arthur A. Crais, Jr., Adjunct Professor
This case originated in the Southern District of Texas in 2024 when Fletcher sued Experian under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.[1] Judge Rosenthal imposed Rule 11 sanctions on the plaintiff and attorneys in solido in the amount of $20,038.40 to Bridgecrest and $13,059.18 to Experian.[2] This was appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which reversed and remanded the matter for the judge to conduct a hearing to determine whether there was bad faith or whether the court could impose sanctions under its “inherent power.”[3]
During the pendency of the appeal from Judge Rosenthal’s initial ruling, the Fifth Circuit issued an order on Dec. 18, 2025, for the appellant to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for citations and quotations not supported by the case law.[4] This opinion addresses the appellant’s reply to the appellate court’s inquiry.
“Having considered counsel's responses to the show-cause order, we have determined that counsel used artificial intelligence to draft a substantial portion, if not all, of her reply brief and then failed to verify the accuracy of the content generated. We have also determined that she was not forthcoming in her response to the show-cause order.”[5]
The panel fined the attorney $2,500 to be paid to the Clerk of the Fifth Circuit within 30 days.
A copy of the Feb. 18 opinion is attached.
[1] Fletcher v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., No. CV H-24-370, 2025 WL 3904302 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2025), vacated and remanded, No. 25-20086, 2026 WL 37428 (5th Cir. Jan. 6, 2026).
[2] 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 270138 at *9 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2025).
[3] 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 257 at *12—13; 2026 WL 37428 (5th Cir. Jan. 6, 2025).
[4] 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 270138 at *1—2.
[5] 2026 WL 37428 at *2.
