Fletcher v. Experian Information Solutions & Bridgecrest Credit Company
CA Fifth Circuit · Feb 18, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- CA Fifth Circuit
- Record ID
- fletcher-v-experian-information-solutions-bridgecrest-credit-company-2026-02-18
- Observed outcome
- The court ordered attorney Heather Hersh to pay a $2,500 sanction to the clerk of court within 30 days.
- Known monetary consequence
- $2,500
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
Reply briefs are where hallucinated quotes slip through; require a partner to verify every quoted passage against the opinion text.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Contract
- Appellate
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- $2,500
- Procedural posture
- 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.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
Court identified use of artificial generative intelligence but did not name the specific tool.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Assign a responsible reviewer for AI-assisted research and drafting.