Fletcher v. Experian Information Solutions & Bridgecrest Credit Company
CA Fifth Circuit · Feb 18, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The Fifth Circuit sanctioned attorney Heather Hersh $2,500 for submitting an appellate brief containing AI-generated fabricated citations and misrepresentations. The court found that Hersh failed to verify the AI-generated content and subsequently provided evasive, misleading responses to the court's show-cause order, warranting discipline under Rule 46(c) and the court's inherent authority.
- Why the court cared
- False Quotes: Case Law | Reply brief attributed to In re Deepwater Horizon a quotation the court could not find; Court concluded the quoted language was not present in the opinion. || False Quotes: Case Law | Reply brief attributed to Cooter & Gell a formulation about frivolousness that the court found was not supported by the cited passage. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief cited Edwards v. General Motors Corp. for the proposition that sua sponte sanctions implicate de novo review; court found Edwards does not contain that proposition and the citation was a misrepresentation. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief asserted Lewis v. Brown & Root reversed §1927 sanctions where record lacked vexatious intent; court noted Lewis in fact affirmed a §1927 sanction, so the brief misrepresented the case.
- Why it matters now
- Reply briefs are where hallucinated quotes slip through; require a partner to verify every quoted passage against the opinion text.
Why this matter is tracked
The Fifth Circuit sanctioned attorney Heather Hersh $2,500 for filing a reply brief containing numerous fabricated case citations, quotations, and factual misrepresentations. The court determined that Hersh used generative AI to draft the brief and failed to verify the accuracy of the output. When issued a show-cause order, Hersh provided evasive and misleading responses, initially failing to disclose the use of AI and later failing to explain her verification process. The court found that the submission of a brief riddled with hallucinations constituted an abuse of the judicial process and conduct unbecoming a member of the bar, justifying sanctions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46(c) and the court's inherent authority.
Reply briefs are where hallucinated quotes slip through; require a partner to verify every quoted passage against the opinion text.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
Court identified use of artificial generative intelligence but did not name the specific tool.
The Fifth Circuit issued a show-cause order to counsel regarding inaccuracies in a reply brief, subsequently imposing a monetary sanction following counsel's response.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
4 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Reply brief attributed to In re Deepwater Horizon a quotation the court could not find; Court concluded the quoted language was not present in the opinion.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Reply brief attributed to Cooter & Gell a formulation about frivolousness that the court found was not supported by the cited passage.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief cited Edwards v. General Motors Corp. for the proposition that sua sponte sanctions implicate de novo review; court found Edwards does not contain that proposition and the citation was a misrepresentation.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief asserted Lewis v. Brown & Root reversed §1927 sanctions where record lacked vexatious intent; court noted Lewis in fact affirmed a §1927 sanction, so the brief misrepresented the case.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Fletcher v. Experian Information Solutions & Bridgecrest Credit Company?
- The Fifth Circuit sanctioned attorney Heather Hersh $2,500 for submitting an appellate brief containing AI-generated fabricated citations and misrepresentations. The court found that Hersh failed to verify the AI-generated content and subsequently provided evasive, misleading responses to the court's show-cause order, warranting discipline under Rule 46(c) and the court's inherent authority.
- Why does Fletcher v. Experian Information Solutions & Bridgecrest Credit Company matter for legal AI risk?
- Reply briefs are where hallucinated quotes slip through; require a partner to verify every quoted passage against the opinion text.
- What does the public record establish about Fletcher v. Experian Information Solutions & Bridgecrest Credit Company?
- Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
- Which source supports this Fletcher v. Experian Information Solutions & Bridgecrest Credit Company summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.