Also, Attorney Fee’s Reductions Were Affirmed And Appellant Was Ordered to Pay Minimal Appeal Sanctions For AI Hallucinations In Appellate Briefing.
The memorable thing about this opinion, Del Biaggio v. Bansen, Case No. A174647 (1st Dist., Div. 4 July 10, 2026) (published), is what it determined in compensating paralegal work under a contractual fees clause which was silent on defining “attorney’s fees” to a plaintiff prevailing party. Paralegals and their supervising professionals will like the result.
In the end, the appellate court reversed a lower court’s sua sponte conclusion that paralegal work could not be compensated under a contractual fees clause (even without a clear definition of “attorneys’ fees” in the clause) because it was counterproductive to using legal professionals which billed at lower rates and actually decreased fees under a “reasonableness” analysis.
Other parts of the opinion held this: (1) the lower court’s reduction to true attorney’s fees were supported based on case non-complexity, block billing, and duplication; (2) a reconsideration motion’s small sanction order had to be vacated on due process grounds (not to mention the paralegal work analysis was incorrect); and (3) appellant’s counsel had to pay a $1,500 sanctions to the appellate clerk based on use of AI hallucinations, as well as report the issue to the State Bar.