California Enacts Rules Governing Lawyers' Use of Generative AI

California will become one of the first states to expressly regulate attorneys' use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) on January 1, 2027. California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) 574 on September 30, 2026, codifying attorneys' professional accountability duties when using AI tools.

Lawyers "Shall Not Delegate the Practice of Law" to AI

New Business and Professions Code Section 6068.1 preserves attorneys' duties of reasonable competence and diligence, providing that an attorney "shall not delegate the practice of law" to generative AI.

The statute does not identify tasks that may or may not be performed with AI assistance, nor does it define "delegate" or "the practice of law." These omissions leave an important boundary unresolved: When does permissible assistance become impermissible delegation of professional judgment?

A reasonable interpretation is that AI can assist with research, drafting, document evaluation, discovery review, correspondence and similar work, but attorneys remain responsible for the legal judgment and analysis underlying the work product.

This is particularly significant for "AI-native" firms built around highly automated workflows. SB 574 does not foreclose those models, but it makes meaningful attorney review and decision-making at substantive points more important than nominal or rubber-stamp supervision.

Confidential and Nonpublic Information

Section 6068.1 also imposes an AI-specific confidentiality requirement: An attorney may not enter confidential, nonpublic or personally identifying information (broadly defined) into a generative AI system unless access is restricted to the attorney and authorized persons who are themselves subject to confidentiality obligations.

This provision makes an AI system's data-handling practices relevant to professional compliance and may preclude certain publicly available consumer AI tools.

Before submitting protected client or case information, attorneys should have a sufficient basis to conclude that access is restricted as the statute requires. Attorneys should also consider the types of information submitted to AI tools and carefully review documents and other inputs to identify what can be submitted based on each tool's features.

AI Outputs Must Be Verified

SB 574 also requires attorneys using generative AI tools to take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of their outputs,¹ expressly including case and statutory citations, and correct erroneous or hallucinated output in material they use.

Reasonable verification may require confirming that a cited authority exists, remains good law and supports the proposition for which it is cited. This provision plainly establishes the legislature's view that AI output is work requiring professional review, not an authoritative source.

Every Citation Filed in Court Must Be Personally Verified

SB 574 separately amends Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.7 to prohibit filings in any California court from containing a citation that the responsible attorney has not personally verified.² The provision expressly covers AI-supplied citations but is not limited to them.

This is broader than an anti-hallucination rule. It creates a personal verification requirement for every citation in a California court filing, whether from AI, an associate, a paralegal, research service, prior brief or another source. Research may still be delegated, but the better reading of "personally verified" is that the responsible attorney cannot rely solely on someone else's check. The statute does not resolve which attorney is "responsible for submitting" a paper when multiple lawyers sign or appear on it.

Because the citation requirement sits in Section 128.7, violations are subject to its sanctions framework, which includes nonmonetary directives, penalties payable to the court and, where warranted, reasonable attorney's fees and expenses. A law firm is jointly responsible for violations by its partners, associates and employees (outside exceptional circumstances).

Disclosure of AI Use to the Court

Section 6068.1 also requires attorneys who use generative AI in their practice to disclose that use to the court "for all documents submitted to the court." The language presents an interpretive question. One reading is document-specific: disclosure is required when AI was used to prepare the particular filing. Viewed literally, however, the provision could support a broader obligation for attorneys who use generative AI in their practice.

The statute does not prescribe the form of disclosure or specify how much AI involvement triggers it. Until that question is resolved, the more prudent course may be to provide document-specific disclosure whenever AI was used in preparing a filing.

Scope and Practical Implications

Before January 1, 2027, attorneys practicing in California should 1) review their AI systems' parameters and security features for compliance, 2) define permitted inputs, 3) establish meaningful review and citation-verification protocols, and 4) determine how required court disclosures will be made.

For questions about these developments, please contact the authors or your Holland & Knight relationship attorney.

Notes

¹ The law also prohibits arbitrators from delegating any part of their decision making to an AI tool and establishes a new complaint process for alternative dispute resolution providers, but these topics are outside the scope of this alert.

² The amendment also appears to create a drafting issue. Before SB 574, subdivision (b)(2) contained the certification that legal contentions were warranted by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for changing it, and subdivision (d)(1) barred monetary sanctions against a represented party for violating that paragraph. Reading the changes from SB 574 literally, the represented-party protection now applies to the citation rule and no longer to frivolous legal contentions. The result appears unintended and may require legislative correction or judicial construction.

Information contained in this alert is for the general education and knowledge of our readers. It is not designed to be, and should not be used as, the sole source of information when analyzing and resolving a legal problem, and it should not be substituted for legal advice, which relies on a specific factual analysis. Moreover, the laws of each jurisdiction are different and are constantly changing. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. If you have specific questions regarding a particular fact situation, we urge you to consult the authors of this publication, your Holland & Knight representative or other competent legal counsel.