California Has New Rules for Lawyers Who Use AI. Here Is What They Mean for Your Case.

When you hire a lawyer, you expect the lawyer to do the thinking – not an algorithm, not a tool, not artificial intelligence. But with generative AI becoming more available and common in law offices, the state of California drew a hard line on September 30, 2026. Senate Bill 574, which takes effect on January 1, 2027, establishes clear statutory rules for how lawyers, arbitrators, and those in the practice of law use generative AI.

In August, we wrote about a California court that sanctioned a law firm for filing AI-generated fake case law; SB 574 puts into law the lessons learned. For anyone navigating a legal dispute, the law addresses three practical concerns: what your lawyer can do with your personal information, who takes responsibility for court filings, and what rules apply if your case goes to arbitration.

Your lawyer still does the lawyering

The new Business and Professions Code section 6068.1 states the core rule in one line: an attorney “shall not delegate the practice of law to generative artificial intelligence.” The same section keeps every attorney’s existing duty of reasonable competence and diligence in place.

Nothing in the law prohibits lawyers from using generative AI. What it establishes is the standard that attorneys must meet when using such tools for legal work.

Protecting your private information

The law places strict boundaries on what can be entered into an AI tool. An attorney is prohibited from inputting confidential, personal identifying, or other nonpublic information into an AI system unless access is strictly restricted to the attorney and authorized individuals bound by confidentiality rules.

The statute lists what counts as personal identifying information, including:

• dates of birth, Social Security numbers and driver’s license numbers;
• addresses and phone numbers of parties, victims, witnesses and court personnel;
• medical or psychiatric information, financial information and account numbers; and
• anything sealed by court order or made confidential by court rule or statute.

A public AI tool that allows external access to user inputs does not meet the strict standard of confidentiality required by the law. Your sensitive medical and financial data belongs only in secure, restricted environments.

The filing attorney must check each citation personally

Section 6068.1 requires a lawyer who uses AI to take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of its output, “including, but not limited to, the accuracy of all case and statutory citations,” and to correct any erroneous or “hallucinated” output in any material the lawyer uses.

SB 574 then adds a filing rule to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7: “A brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court shall not contain any citations that an attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally verified, including any citation provided by generative artificial intelligence.” The rule applies to citations from any source, AI or otherwise.

If these rules are violated, courts can impose sanctions after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm is held jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, associates and employees.

The Transparency Standard: Courts will be told when AI was used

Section 6068.1 also requires a lawyer who uses generative AI to disclose the use of generative AI to the court for all documents submitted to the court. When generative AI is used to create content provided to the public, the lawyer must consider whether to disclose that use.

Judges have their own guidance. Standard 10.80 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration, in effect since September 1, 2025, addresses judicial officers’ use of generative AI. SB 574 directs the Judicial Council to publicly revisit that standard and revise it as necessary to reflect the further development of generative AI.

If your case is in arbitration

Many workplace claims are decided in private arbitration instead of court, often under an agreement the employee signed when hired. We have written about how California courts treat those agreements, including in Phan v. Knight.

SB 574 adds Code of Civil Procedure section 1282.1, which sets two rules for arbitrators:

• An arbitrator may not delegate any part of the decision-making process to a generative AI tool.
• An arbitrator may not rely on AI-generated information from outside the record without disclosing it to the parties beforehand and, as far as practical, giving the parties a chance to comment on its use.

The law also changes how complaints are handled against alternative dispute resolution firms, providers and practitioners certified through the State Bar’s voluntary certification program. The earlier law required the program to verify that each certified firm, provider or practitioner had its own procedures for complaints about its arbitrators and mediators and for remedying their violations.

The new law shifts the structure in ADR handling: the program must now include procedures for the State Bar – or a professional organization the State Bar approves – to receive, investigate and resolve complaints that a certified firm, provider or practitioner failed to comply with the applicable ethical standards. While these investigative proceedings are private and confidential, accountability has teeth. After a decision is made, the State Bar may publicly name a certified firm, provider or practitioner found to have violated a standard, along with the action taken and its general basis.

When to seek legal guidance

If you are facing a workplace dispute and want to understand how your matter would be handled, Java & Jebreil can talk with you about your situation and what to expect at each stage. The firm represents California employees in wrongful termination, discrimination and harassment, wage and hour and workplace retaliation matters.