June 1, 2026 (in 3 days): New York: 22 NYCRR Part 161 takes effect, system-wide AI policy for all UCS courts

ByoPlanet International, LLC v. Johansson

U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida · S.D. Fla. · Florida bar guidance

Court sanction

Verified April 26, 2026

Citation
ByoPlanet Int'l, LLC v. Johansson, No. 0:25-cv-60630-DSL (S.D. Fla. July 15, 2025) (sanctions order); fee award entered July 31, 2025 (ECF No. 43)
Decided
July 15, 2025

Summary

Attorney James Martin Paul, representing ByoPlanet International and CEO Richard O'Shea across four consolidated business-dispute cases, repeatedly submitted filings citing nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations generated by ChatGPT, including a quote attributed to Justice Scalia's concurrence in Liteky v. United States that does not appear in that opinion. Paul continued submitting AI-hallucinated citations even after the court issued an order to show cause about his AI use, including in his response to that order. Judge David S. Leibowitz found the conduct repeated, abusive, and in bad faith.

AI tool:
ChatGPT
Sanction amount:
$85,567.75
This case summary is informational only. Verify the underlying opinion or order against the primary source before relying on it in any filing or client matter.

What sanction did the court impose?

All four cases dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend. Paul ordered to pay defendants' attorneys' fees totaling $85,567.75 ($36,663.00 to Knecht and Novak; $48,904.75 to Gilstrap), required to attach the sanctions order to any complaint he files in S.D. Fla. for two years, and referred to the Florida Bar for discipline.

Why does ByoPlanet International, LLC v. Johansson matter for law firms using AI?

ByoPlanet stands out among AI-hallucination sanctions cases for its scale and the court’s explicit finding of repeat, post-warning misuse: Paul continued submitting fabricated citations after being put on notice, including in his response to the show-cause order itself. The $85,567.75 fee award, spread across four consolidated cases, is among the largest AI-hallucination sanctions to date and reflects the Eleventh Circuit’s willingness to treat persistent AI misuse as bad-faith conduct warranting both monetary and non-monetary penalties.

Sources

Primary sources

Unverified claims:
  • Description language attributing AI use to ChatGPT specifically; the July 31, 2025 fee-award order references "generative AI" without naming the product, though the May 28, 2025 show-cause order and consistent secondary reporting identify ChatGPT.