California has become the state to watch for rules on how lawyers use generative AI. Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 574 on September 30, 2026, and the rules take effect on January 1, 2027. The law covers all California-licensed attorneys, including in-house counsel, and it reaches beyond the courtroom into how legal work is drafted, verified and disclosed.
What Lawyers Must Do
The law allows attorneys to use generative AI to assist in their work but bars them from delegating the practice of law to it. That line is important and undefined. The statute does not spell out what counts as delegation, leaving lawyers to decide how much judgment they can hand off to a tool before crossing it.
Attorneys must also take reasonable steps to check AI output for accuracy, including case and statutory citations, and must correct errors or fabricated content before relying on it. Confidential or personal information may go into an AI system only if access is limited to the attorney and authorized people who must also keep it confidential.
Disclosure is the most visible change. Attorneys who use AI must disclose that use to the court in court filings. Analysts note that the rule could be read to cover only filings prepared with AI or to apply more broadly to any attorney who uses it, and that ambiguity is not yet settled. For content aimed at the public, the duty is softer: attorneys must consider whether to disclose.
The Citation Rule
Separately, the law amends the state's civil procedure rules so that the responsible attorney must personally verify every citation in a court filing, whatever its source. That covers research done by staff or software as well as work produced by AI. Courts can sanction attorneys and their firms for citation errors, and attorneys usually receive 21 days to withdraw or fix a challenged filing.
This is the provision most likely to matter in practice. Several high-profile incidents in recent years involved fabricated case law slipping into filings, and a verification duty puts the burden squarely on the lawyer who signs the document.
Arbitrators Are Covered Too
The statute also addresses arbitrators. Arbitrators cannot delegate decision-making to an AI tool. If they rely on AI-generated information from outside the record, they must notify the parties and, where practical, allow the parties to respond.
Other States Are Moving Differently
California is not alone, but its neighbors are taking different approaches. New York's state court system adopted a statewide rule on attorney AI use in June 2026, and bills requiring an AI-disclosure affidavit with filings have been introduced there. Florida's Supreme Court updated its practice rules so that signing a filing certifies that its cited authorities exist and are accurately cited. Illinois' Supreme Court allows lawyers to use AI without disclosure as long as they review the output.
Commentators expect citation verification to spread more widely because California and Florida both adopted it. Disclosure requirements are more likely to keep varying from state to state, which could complicate multistate litigation.
Open Questions for Practitioners
Several terms remain undefined, and commentators have flagged them as the likeliest sources of dispute. The statute places duties on the attorney responsible for submitting a pleading but does not define that role, which could matter when several lawyers work on one filing. It also leaves unclear whether disclosure applies to every document a lawyer files or only to those where AI played a part. Until courts or regulators clarify, the cautious reading is to disclose AI use on each filing where it was involved.
Another practical question is how firms handle tools embedded in everyday software. Many research platforms and word processors now include generative features, so a lawyer may use AI without deliberately opening a chatbot. Firms will likely need an inventory of the tools their staff use and a policy on when use triggers disclosure and verification.
Why It Matters
For lawyers, the message is that AI can speed up research and drafting, but the responsibility stays with the person who signs the filing. Firms will need written policies, verification workflows and training that show how AI was used and checked. Small practices may find the compliance burden heavier than large firms with dedicated risk teams.
For clients, the law offers a clearer standard for what good legal work looks like when machines are involved. For the broader AI industry, it is another sign that regulation is moving from abstract principles to specific duties that apply inside professional workflows. Anyone practicing in California should read the enrolled text of SB 574 directly, since the statute leaves several terms undefined and its exact scope will likely be tested in court.
