August 20, 2026, (Inside AI) — A California appellate court has sanctioned attorney Carlton Floyd $1,500 for filing a brief containing fictitious case citations generated by artificial intelligence. The decision in Del Biaggio v. Bansen clarifies that delegating verification of AI-generated legal research to a paralegal does not satisfy an attorney’s ethical duty.
The Court of Appeal, First District, Division Four, issued its opinion on July 10, 2026. The underlying case involved a dairy worker, Daniel Del Biaggio, who prevailed at trial on contract and equity claims. His counsel, Floyd, introduced AI-generated quotations while briefing a paralegal fee issue on appeal.
The brief contained fabricated quotations attributed to real California cases, including PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler and Gorman v. Tassajara Development Corp. One quotation purported to come from a 26-year-old California Supreme Court decision but appeared nowhere in that case. These false citations formed the backbone of Floyd’s argument.
Floyd told the court he had used generative AI during trial recesses in another matter. He asked his paralegal to verify the additions before filing. The paralegal believed Floyd had already done so. Floyd cited his office’s protocols requiring human verification of AI outputs using primary sources.
Read: AI Hallucinations Infiltrate Australia’s Parliament Submissions
Justice Jeremy M. Goldman, writing for the panel, found three independent failures. First, the protocol itself was deficient. The California State Bar’s guidance states that a lawyer must personally review all AI outputs for accuracy before submission. Delegating that review to a paralegal falls short.
The court cited Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P. for the principle that reading the legal authorities one cites is a fundamental, non-delegable duty. Second, Floyd should have recognized red flags. The AI supplied a perfect quotation from an old Supreme Court case he had not encountered when researching the same issue at trial.
Third, Floyd waited more than three months after learning of the errors to correct the record, doing so only days before oral argument. This violated his duty of candor under California Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(1).
The court ordered the $1,500 sanction paid to the court clerk. It directed the clerk to forward the opinion to the State Bar under Business and Professions Code section 6086.7(a)(3). Floyd must also provide the opinion to his client and certify compliance.
Non-delegable duty sharpens AI accountability for lawyers
The ruling reinforces that a lawyer’s ethical obligation to verify citations cannot be outsourced to non-attorneys. The court’s reliance on Noland and the State Bar’s practical guidance signals a stricter standard than some practitioners may have assumed.
Legal technology experts note that AI tools can hallucinate case names and quotations with high confidence. The American Bar Association has issued similar warnings. Yet enforcement has been inconsistent across jurisdictions. California’s approach here adds a clear precedent.
Read: UK Judge Accuses Home Office of Using AI Hallucinated Asylum Evidence
The case also highlights a practical risk: AI-generated text that perfectly matches a lawyer’s argument is a red flag, not a convenience. The court found Floyd should have been skeptical of a quotation that precisely supported his position from a case he had not previously found.
Prompt correction is part of candor, not just accuracy
The delay in correcting the record drew particular scrutiny. The court quoted Sheerer v. Panas to stress that the duty of candor requires truthfulness and responsibility in crafting written arguments, not merely double-checking citations.
Other jurisdictions have grappled with similar issues. Federal courts in New York and Texas have sanctioned lawyers for AI-generated fake citations. The California decision aligns with a growing judicial consensus that attorneys must actively verify AI outputs.
The opinion’s directive to notify the State Bar means Floyd may face additional professional discipline. The $1,500 sanction is modest, but the reputational and regulatory consequences could be significant.
Tyler Palmer, counsel at Tucker Ellis LLP, analyzed the decision for Westlaw Today. He noted that practitioners must personally read every case they cite and confirm each quotation’s accuracy. Delegating verification to capable non-attorneys does not discharge the ethical obligation.
