Fifth Circuit Sanctions Lawyer for AI-Generated Brief
Summary
The Fifth Circuit recently sanctioned appellate counsel in Fletcher v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. for submitting a reply brief containing fabricated quotations, inaccurate citations, and false factual assertions. The court determined counsel used generative AI for a substantial portion of the brief but failed to verify its accuracy before filing. Emphasizing this as a "lawyering problem" rather than a "technology problem," the court reiterated that AI tools do not diminish a lawyer's professional duties for all submitted material. Furthermore, counsel's vague and incredible explanations, coupled with a lack of candor regarding the brief's preparation, contributed to the sanction. The monetary penalty, based on existing disciplinary authority, signals courts will not tolerate unverified AI output or evasive responses.
Key takeaway
For legal professionals integrating generative AI into their appellate practice, you must meticulously verify every quotation, citation, and factual assertion before filing. The Fifth Circuit's ruling in Fletcher v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. underscores that courts will apply existing disciplinary authority to sanction unverified AI output and a lack of candor, viewing this as a failure of professional duty, not a technology issue. Ensure your internal workflows include robust verification steps to avoid similar professional and institutional repercussions.
Key insights
Unverified AI-generated content, not AI use itself, constitutes a professional misconduct problem for lawyers.
Principles
- Lawyers remain fully responsible for all submitted content.
- Existing disciplinary rules apply to AI-assisted legal work.
- Candor and credible explanations are crucial when errors arise.
In practice
- Rigorously verify all AI-generated legal text.
- Confirm accuracy of every citation and quotation.
- Be candid with courts about AI use and errors.
Topics
- Legal Ethics
- Generative AI
- Judicial Sanctions
- Professional Responsibility
- Appellate Practice
- Legal Technology
Best for: CTO, VP of Engineering/Data, Director of AI/ML, Legal Professional, AI Ethicist, Policy Maker
Related on AIssential
See Counsel's argued verdicts on the open AI decisions leaders are weighing →
Editorial summary, takeaway, and curation by AIssential. Original article published by Welcome to the Artificial Intelligence Incident Database.