Del Biaggio v. Bansen
California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four · Cal. Ct. App. · California bar guidance
Conduct
Counsel added AI-supplied quotations to an appellate brief during another trial and left verification to his paralegal; three quotations from PLCM did not exist.
Consequence
$1,500 sanction payable to the Court of Appeal, opinion sent to the State Bar, and a required copy to the client; no award to the opposing party.
Lesson
A verification protocol that sends AI output to a paralegal, not the signing lawyer, did not meet the State Bar guidance the lawyer himself cited.
Verified September 28, 2026
- Citation
- Del Biaggio v. Bansen, No. A174647 (Cal. Ct. App. 1st Dist. Div. 4 July 10, 2026) (certified for publication)
- Decided
- July 10, 2026
Summary
Dairy worker Daniel Del Biaggio won a contract suit against Pete and Mary Ann Bansen and appealed the trial court's reduction of his attorney fee award and its exclusion of all paralegal fees. His opening brief, filed by attorney Carlton Floyd, quoted PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084 as saying "We discern no reason why fees for paralegal services should not be recoverable under section 1717," and as calling paralegal services "a component of attorney fees awards." The court found that "[n]o such language appears in that case--or any other of which we are aware--nor did the case address the subject of paralegal fees." A third PLCM quotation and a quotation attributed to Gorman v. Tassajara Development Corp. were also fictitious, and the brief cited "Guinn v. Dotco, Inc." (which the court said resembles Guinn v. Dotson) as involving a contractual fee clause when it concerned a statute. Floyd's declaration said his office "uses generative AI" with verification protocols and blamed a "communication error" with his paralegal about who would check quotations he added during trial recesses in another case.
- AI tool:
- Generative AI (counsel's declaration said his office "uses generative AI"; the court gleaned from his declaration that he used it to make additions to the opening brief, and stated that he "admitted the unverified use of AI"; tool not identified)
- Sanction amount:
- $1,500 against attorney Carlton Floyd, payable to the clerk of the Court of Appeal under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.276(a)(4); opinion forwarded to the State Bar under Bus. & Prof. Code 6086.7(a)(3); Floyd to give his client a copy and certify he has done so; respondents' request for sanctions denied
What sanction did the court impose?
In a published opinion (Goldman, J., with Brown, P.J., and Sweet, J.), the court reversed the categorical denial of paralegal fees, affirmed the lodestar reduction, and vacated the trial court's section 1008 fee award against Floyd. On the brief, it issued an order to show cause under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.276(a)(4) and ordered Floyd to pay $1,500 to the clerk of the court within 30 days after the remittitur. It credited that Floyd "admitted the unverified use of AI, offered some explanation for how it occurred, and eventually sent a letter identifying and withdrawing the misstatements," but found his protocol "insufficient not only to prevent the errors but also to satisfy his obligation to review personally the principal legal authority on which his argument relied," and his correction, made shortly before oral argument and more than three months after the respondents flagged the problem, "far from ideal." It directed the clerk to forward the opinion to the State Bar and ordered Floyd to give his client a copy. It declined to award sanctions to the Bansens, finding the appeal not frivolous.
Why does Del Biaggio v. Bansen matter for law firms using AI?
Del Biaggio addresses a common safeguard, a verification step performed by staff, and finds it inadequate. Floyd described protocols “requiring human verification of all outputs using primary sources” and blamed a miscommunication with his paralegal. The court rejected the premise: even if the communication had worked, his plan to add case law generated by AI “without ever planning to review personally” (or to have any other lawyer review) “the case law he added” would “have been inappropriate even if it had not gone awry.” It grounded that conclusion in the State Bar’s Practical Guidance, which Floyd himself had invoked, and in Noland’s statement that “it is a fundamental duty of attorneys to read the legal authorities they cite in appellate briefs or any other court filings.”
The court also identified a warning sign. The quotations “articulated the exact proposition he sought to advance (including purportedly from the California Supreme Court 26 years ago)” yet “had eluded him when he researched the same issue in the trial court.” Quotations that state exactly the proposition sought, and that the lawyer’s own earlier research had not turned up, were a “red flag.”
The sanction was calibrated. The court credited the admission and the eventual withdrawal letter, compared the case to Alvarez ($1,500), Schlichter ($1,750), and Lnu v. Blanche, and fixed $1,500 payable to the court. In a footnote noting other citation errors, it added: “We cannot say whether all of these errors are attributable to the use of AI, but we caution Floyd that he should adopt a different approach to his preparation of briefs.” It refused the Bansens’ request for fees because their motion “significantly overreaches by characterizing the appeal as frivolous” when Del Biaggio’s paralegal-fee argument succeeded. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that a court can separate a meritorious appeal from the sanctionable way it was briefed.
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- Review AI-use protocols against the State Bar of California's Practical Guidance. The court held a protocol that routes AI output to a paralegal for checking does not meet its requirement that 'a lawyer must review all outputs produced using AI tools.'
- Document prompt correction once an error is identified. The court counted the three-month delay between the respondents' motion and Floyd's withdrawal letter against him under the duty of candor.
- Train attorneys to treat an AI-supplied quotation that states the exact proposition sought, and that earlier research missed, as a signal to read the source.
- Consider that sanctions may run to the court rather than the opponent. The court sanctioned counsel but declined the respondents' request because the appeal itself had merit.