The California Court of Appeal sanctioned an attorney for submitting appellate briefs containing fake AI-generated case citations - and ruled that delegating the verification of those citations to a paralegal does not satisfy an attorney's ethical obligations.
In Del Biaggio v. Bansen, decided July 10, 2026, the First District Court of Appeal ordered attorney Carlton Floyd to pay $1,500 in sanctions after his opening brief quoted nonexistent language attributed to real California cases. The court also referred the matter to the State Bar and required Floyd to disclose the opinion to his client.
Fabricated citations formed the core of the argument
Floyd's brief purported to quote the California Supreme Court's decision in PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084 for the proposition that paralegal fees are recoverable under Civil Code section 1717. That language does not appear in the decision or any other California case. The brief also included a fabricated quotation from Gorman v. Tassajara Development Corp. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 44 and misidentified another case entirely.
The fabricated quotes were not peripheral. They formed the backbone of Floyd's argument on appeal regarding the trial court's exclusion of paralegal fees from the fee award.
Floyd acknowledged using generative AI and described a "communication error." He said he added the AI-generated quotations during trial recesses in another matter and asked his paralegal to verify them before filing. The paralegal understood Floyd had already verified the additions himself.
Three separate failures
Writing for the panel, Justice Jeremy M. Goldman identified three independent problems with Floyd's approach.
First, the court held Floyd's verification protocol was deficient even absent the communication breakdown. The California State Bar's Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative AI in the Practice of Law requires that "a lawyer must review all outputs produced using AI tools for accuracy, including citations to authority before submission to the court." Delegating that review to a paralegal falls short, the court said, citing Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P. (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 426: "It is a fundamental duty of attorneys to read the legal authorities they cite in appellate briefs or any other court filings to determine that the authorities stand for the propositions for which they are cited."
Second, the court said Floyd should have recognized red flags. The AI had supplied quotations from a 26-year-old California Supreme Court decision articulating exactly the proposition Floyd sought to advance, even though his own research in the trial court had never surfaced that language.
Third, Floyd waited more than three months after learning of the errors to correct the record, updating his filing only days before oral argument. The court found this delay violated his duty of candor under California Rule of Professional. Conduct 3.3(a)(1).
Why this matters for legal professionals
The practical lesson of Del Biaggio is that attorneys who use AI for legal research must personally verify every case they cite. The court made clear that a responsibly review is a non-delegable duty - delegating that task to support staff does not discharge the attorney's ethical obligation, regardless of that skill. For legal support staff, this means understanding both the limits of AI-generated legal research and their own role when asked to verify citations. Training focused on these issues, such as AI for Paralegals Courses, can help legal teams understand where AI is reliable and where it remains dangerous in legal work.
Further guidance for lawyers and legal staff navigating AI in practice is available through broader training on AI for Legal Professionals.
The court also offered a warning about how to handle errors when they surface. When AI-generated citations are found to be fabricated, the duty of candor does not allow for delay. The obligation, as the court quoted Sheerer v. Panas explained - "is not merely an admonition to double-check citations… it is to be at all times truthful and to be responsible in crafting any written arguments presented in this court."
Your membership also unlocks:
