California lawmakers approved SB 574, a bill establishing the first state-level rules in the U.S. for how lawyers use generative artificial intelligence in their practice. The legislation, which now heads to Governor Gavin Newsom's desk, prohibits attorneys from delegating core legal judgment to AI and mandates verification of all AI-generated court submissions. The move comes as courts across the country report a rising number of sanctions against lawyers who file documents containing unverified or fabricated AI content.
What the bill requires
The bill bars lawyers from "delegating the practice of law" to generative AI systems. Attorneys must take "reasonable steps" to verify the accuracy of all materials prepared using AI, including citations to case law. If a filing contains false or "hallucinated" information, the lawyer is obligated to correct it. The legislation also requires disclosure of AI use when preparing documents submitted to court and prohibits entering confidential or non-public information into certain generative AI tools.
Arbitrators face separate restrictions under the bill. They are not permitted to delegate any decision-making functions to artificial intelligence. The requirements build on existing civil procedure rules in California that already mandate court documents be grounded in current law. The bill also mirrors a prior rule adopted by the California Judicial Council governing judges' and court staff's use of AI.
The driving force behind the legislation
Democratic Senator Tom Umberg, who chairs the California Senate Judiciary Committee, authored the bill. He pointed to ongoing problems with lawyers submitting materials containing AI-generated errors. "Our system, our courts, our judiciary must rely on the integrity of the participants and lawyers. If they cannot ensure this, everything falls apart," Umberg said.
Umberg noted the verification requirement is designed to "raise standards for lawyers." He added that the bill gives courts another tool to respond to noncompliance, including possible sanctions. The Judicial Council, the policy-making body for the state's court system, said it has no position or comments on the bill.
Mixed reception among legal professionals
Some California lawyers argue the bill largely duplicates obligations they already face. Wayne Stacey, Executive Director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, called the bill largely a "duplication" of existing ethical rules for lawyers. The debate highlights a tension between codifying AI-specific guardrails and relying on current professional conduct standards to cover new technology.
Why this matters for legal professionals
If signed, SB 574 creates a concrete compliance checklist for any California attorney using generative AI. The core mandate is simple: you cannot outsource legal judgment to a machine, and you remain personally responsible for every citation and factual claim in your filings. For firms already integrating AI tools into document review and drafting workflows, the bill signals that courts will treat AI-generated errors the same as any other failure to verify submissions - with sanctions on the table. Even lawyers in other states should watch this legislation, as California often sets a template that other jurisdictions follow when regulating law practice and technology.
Your membership also unlocks:
