California SB 574: The AI Verification and Disclosure Requirements for Attorneys

TL;DR: California SB 574 was signed on September 30, 2026. It takes effect January 1, 2027. Bloomberg Law called it a first-of-its-kind bill. It puts rules for how attorneys use generative AI into state law, not a court rule. Attorneys may use AI to help with their work, but they may not hand the work over to it. They must check AI output, including every case and statute it cites, and fix what is wrong. They must keep confidential and personal data out of AI tools that others can access. And they must disclose their AI use to the court on documents they submit.

Until now, rules on AI in legal work came from courts and bar groups. Florida, New York, and Connecticut each changed their court rules in 2026. California went further. It wrote the rules into state law. It also added a duty that Florida and New York do not impose: telling the court.

What is California SB 574?

SB 574 is a California law on how attorneys and arbitrators use generative AI. It is Chapter 858 of the 2026 statutes. Governor Gavin Newsom signed it on September 30, 2026. The bill sets no start date of its own, so it takes effect on California's usual date for new laws: January 1, 2027. The full text is on the Legislature's website.

The parts that deal with AI do four things:

• They add a new section to the Business and Professions Code, Section 6068.1. It lists an attorney's duties when using generative AI.
• They change Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.7. That is California's rule on what a signature on a court filing promises. Every citation in a filing must now be personally checked.
• They add Code of Civil Procedure Section 1282.1, with rules for arbitrators.
• They add Code of Civil Procedure Section 180. It tells the Judicial Council to take a public new look at Standard 10.80 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration. The Council must revise it as needed to keep up with changes in generative AI.

It also changes how the State Bar handles some complaints. These are complaints about arbitration and mediation providers the State Bar certifies (Business and Professions Code Section 6173).

Law firm summaries say the law builds on State Bar guidance from 2023, updated in May 2026. The difference is that the guidance is now law.

What does SB 574 require of attorneys who use AI?

Section 6068.1(a) sets out five duties. The first applies to every attorney. The other four apply when an attorney uses generative AI to help with legal work.

Use AI to assist, not to decide.An attorney "shall not delegate the practice of law" to generative AI (Section 6068.1(a)(2)). The law does not define "delegate" or "the practice of law." The safe reading is that a person must still make the legal judgments.

Verify the output. An attorney must take reasonable steps to check that AI output is right. That includes all case and statutory citations (Section 6068.1(a)(3)(B)(i)). Akerman points out that this is not limited to court filings. It reaches any material the attorney uses. That can include internal memos and research notes.

Fix what is wrong.The attorney must also take reasonable steps to fix any "erroneous or hallucinated output." This applies to any material the attorney uses (Section 6068.1(a)(3)(B)(ii)). Finding an error is not enough. It has to be fixed.

Protect private data.Three kinds of data are covered. The law calls them confidential, personal identifying, and other nonpublic information. An attorney may not put them into an AI system unless access is limited. Only the attorney, and people the attorney authorizes who must keep it confidential, may have access (Section 6068.1(a)(3)(A)). The law also lists what counts as personal identifying information, from birth dates to account numbers (Section 6068.1(b)(2)). Holland & Knight notes that this may rule out some public consumer AI tools. Akerman adds that a vendor's "enterprise" label does not by itself show who can see the data. Neither does a promise not to train on it.

Tell the court.An attorney who uses generative AI must disclose that use to the court "for all documents submitted to the court" (Section 6068.1(a)(3)(C)). For content given to the public, the attorney must think about whether to disclose AI use. Disclosure there is not required.

What does the new citation rule say?

The change to Section 128.7 is short, and it applies whether or not AI was used. Under new Section 128.7(b)(2)(A), a brief, pleading, motion, or other paper filed in any court "shall not contain any citations that an attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally verified." The text adds that this includes any citation provided by generative AI.

Two words matter. "Any" means citations from every source. That includes AI, an associate, a paralegal, or a brief borrowed from another case. "Personally" means a check done by someone else may not be enough. Holland & Knight reads it to mean you cannot rely only on another person's check.

What a check involves is not spelled out. Holland & Knight suggests it can mean three things: the authority exists, it is still good law, and it supports the point it is cited for.

The usual Section 128.7 sanctions apply. After notice and a chance to respond, a court may sanction the attorneys, law firms, or parties responsible (Section 128.7(c)). A law firm is also held jointly responsible for violations by its people. That covers partners, associates, and employees. The only way out is exceptional circumstances. Section 128.7 still does not cover discovery papers or disclosures (Section 128.7(g)). The Section 6068.1 duty to verify and correct AI output has no such exception.

What does SB 574 require of arbitrators?

New Section 1282.1 bars arbitrators from handing any part of their decision-making to a generative AI tool. An arbitrator also may not rely on AI output from outside the record without telling the parties first. As far as practical, the parties must get a chance to comment on its use (Section 1282.1(b)). Arbitrators keep their existing duties to be neutral, competent, and diligent (Section 1282.1(a)).

How does California compare with Florida, New York, and Connecticut?

The four states agree on the core idea. The person who signs or files answers for the citations. They split on disclosure.

• Floridachanged its signature rule in 2026. Now the signer vouches that cited authorities "exist and are accurately cited." A related order bars local courts from requiring AI disclosure.
• New York's statewide rule allows AI use and says filers should not be required to disclose it. Individual courts may adopt a stricter model rule.
• Connecticut: anyone who uses generative AI to create or edit a filing must check what the AI produced.
• California requires both checks and disclosure to the court.

California's rule also comes from a different source. Florida, New York, and Connecticut acted through court rules. California acted through a statute, so changing it takes a new law. For a side-by-side look at the other three, see the post on AI rules for court filings in Florida, New York, and Connecticut.

What questions does the law leave open?

Several, according to the firms that have studied it.

What counts as disclosure?The law does not say what the disclosure must say or where it goes. It also does not say what kind of AI use triggers it. Akerman notes two readings. The narrow one: disclose on filings that AI helped prepare. The broad one: an attorney who uses AI anywhere in practice discloses on every filing. Until courts decide, Holland & Knight suggests the careful course: disclose on each filing AI helped prepare.

Who is "responsible"?Section 128.7 points to "an attorney responsible for submitting the pleading." When several attorneys sign or appear on a filing, it does not say which one must check the citations.

What is "delegation"?Neither "delegate" nor "the practice of law" is defined. The line between help and hand-off will be drawn case by case.

What should attorneys do before January 1, 2027?

The firm summaries point to a short list of steps.

Take an inventory. List the AI tools and AI features in use. Include those built into research platforms and office software. Akerman recommends this as a first step.

Check who can see the data. For each tool, find out who can see what is entered and how long it is kept. Read the terms, not the marketing.

Name the person who checks citations. Pick one attorney to personally check every citation before a filing goes out. Do this even if someone else checked first.

Check after the last edit. A citation can change after it is checked if an AI tool touches the text later. That is what happened in a 2026 Connecticut case, covered in the post on Connecticut's AI editing sanction.

Set a disclosure step. Build AI disclosure into the filing checklist, so it is not left to memory on the day of filing.

For a step-by-step method of checking AI output, see a framework for verifying AI-generated legal content.

The law covers attorneys at firms and in company legal departments alike. Morgan Lewis notes it makes no distinction between the two. This article reflects the law and commentary as of October 2026.