Del Biaggio v. Bansen
CA California (4d) · Jul 10, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA California (4d)
- Record ID
- del-biaggio-v-bansen-2026-07-10
- Observed outcome
- The court vacated the trial court's sanctions award against the attorney but imposed a $1,500 sanction payable to the court clerk for the appellate brief misrepresentations.
- Known monetary consequence
- $1,500
Why this matter warrants attention
The California Court of Appeal sanctioned attorney Carlton Floyd $1,500 for filing an appellate brief containing fabricated legal quotations and misrepresented case law. The court determined the attorney failed to fulfill his fundamental duty to personally verify the accuracy of legal authorities cited in court filings, despite his admission of using generative AI tools without adequate supervision.
The court reasoned that the attorney failed his fundamental duty to personally verify legal authorities. It found the attorney's reliance on a paralegal to verify AI-generated additions while he was in trial was insufficient. The court further noted that the attorney's delay in correcting the misstatements until shortly before oral argument unnecessarily burdened the court and opposing counsel, justifying a sanction payable to the court clerk.
This case underscores that delegating verification of AI-generated legal research to non-lawyers or relying on unverified AI outputs constitutes a breach of an attorney's duty of candor. It highlights that even if an attorney admits to errors and eventually corrects them, the failure to personally verify primary authority remains sanctionable.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Contract
- Appellate
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Generative AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- $1,500
- Procedural posture
- Appellate review of a trial court's fee award and sanctions order, combined with a court-initiated order to show cause regarding misrepresentations in the opening brief.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The attorney admitted to using generative AI in his declaration.
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Implement mandatory human-in-the-loop verification protocols for all AI-generated citations and quotations.
- Ensure the lead attorney personally reviews all legal authorities cited in appellate briefs before filing.
- Establish clear internal communication protocols to ensure verification tasks are not lost during delegation.
- Promptly notify the court and opposing counsel upon discovery of any misstatements in filed documents.