The Fifth Circuit Told Lawyers to Check Their Citations. It Cited the Wrong Rule.

Some weeks the legal news writes the jokes for you.

On September 22, the National Law Review pointed out that the Fifth Circuit's 2024 notice warning lawyers to verify their citations (the one that famously says "'I used AI' will not be an excuse for an otherwise sanctionable offense") cited the wrong rule. It pointed to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 6(b)(1)(B), which deals with bankruptcy appeals, when it apparently meant Rule 46(b)(1)(B), which deals with attorney discipline. The ABA Journal picked up the story on September 23 and noted there's no evidence AI caused the error. One missing digit. On a notice about checking your work. Up on the court's website for roughly two years.

We say this with love and respect for the bench: this is the most relatable thing a federal appellate court has ever done.

Hard truths the internet is sharing this week

1. Humans were hallucinating citations long before it was cool

AI didn't invent the wrong cite. It just made it faster and gave it a name. Before chatbots, we called it "the associate was tired" and "that's from the old version of the brief."

2. "Verify your citations" is advice everyone gives and nobody schedules

Every AI policy says "a human must review the output." Very few say which human, when, and how long they get to do it. Verification without calendar time is a vibe, not a control.

3. One digit is all it takes

6 vs. 46. Section 2 vs. Section 12. Your indemnity cap vs. your indemnity cap times ten. The scariest errors aren't the made-up cases. They're the plausible ones that look almost right.

4. The person reviewing the AI output is also tired

"Human in the loop" assumes the human is fresh, caffeinated, and not reviewing their 40th draft of the day. Plan for the human you actually have.

5. Your contract playbook probably has a typo too

Go look. We'll wait. That fallback clause from 2019 references a section that was renumbered two amendments ago, and every AI tool you point at it will cheerfully repeat the mistake.

6. Authority is not the same as accuracy

The National Law Review's point is sharp: errors from authoritative sources spread because everyone assumes someone else checked. That's true of court notices, and it's extremely true of the "approved" template on your shared drive.

7. Somewhere, a legal ops team just added "check the court's own notice" to its QC checklist

And honestly? Fair. If the rule about citations can carry a bad citation for two years, your forty-tab contract tracker is not immune either.

The actually useful part

Snark aside, there's a practical lesson for in-house teams: build verification into the workflow instead of the policy.

• Use tools that show their sources. Generative AI legal assistants that link every answer to a source document make checking fast instead of heroic.
• Check against authoritative research. Citation checks are faster with a real legal research and practical guidance subscription than with a general-purpose chatbot and good intentions.
• Budget review time. If AI saves two hours on a draft, spend 20 minutes of it on verification. You're still ahead.

The lesson isn't "don't use AI." It's "nobody is exempt from checking their work," not the robots, not the lawyers, and apparently not the Fifth Circuit.

Share this with the colleague who says "the AI checked it." Then share it with the colleague who says "I checked it myself." Both of them need it.

This article is general information, not legal advice.