On August 31, 2026, the California Legislature unanimously passed Senate Bill 574, a “first-in-the-nation” law that would establish statutory requirements governing the use of generative artificial intelligence by attorneys, arbitrators, judicial officers, and alternative dispute resolution providers.[1] The bill provides that an attorney “shall not delegate the practice of law to generative artificial intelligence.”[2] An attorney would be prohibited from entering “confidential, personal identifying, and other nonpublic information” into generative AI unless access to that information is restricted to the attorney and authorized persons obligated to protect its confidentiality.[3] Attorneys would also be required to take “reasonable steps” to “verify the accuracy” of AI outputs, including “all case and statutory citations,” and to “[c]orrect any erroneous or hallucinated output” in materials they use.[4] In addition, attorneys would be required to “[d]isclose the use of generative artificial intelligence to the court” for all court submissions and to consider disclosure of AI use for any content provided to the public.[5]
Separately, the bill would also prohibit any paper filed in court from containing a citation that “has not [been] personally verified” by an attorney responsible for the filing, including a citation supplied by generative AI.[6] While the bill does not provide for independent penalties for violations of the generative AI rules, attorney violations are potentially subject to sanctions under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.7 and through the State Bar disciplinary process.[7]
The bill directs the Judicial Council to “publicly revisit, and revise as necessary,” its existing standard governing judicial use of generative AI, and expands the State Bar’s certification and complaint procedures for alternative dispute resolution providers. [8] Senate Bill 574 now awaits action by Governor Gavin Newsom.
ENDNOTES
[1] Bill History of S.B. 574, 2025–2026 Reg. Sess. (Cal. Aug. 31, 2026); Quinn Wilson, California Attorney AI Guardrail Bill Advances to Newsom’s Desk, Bloomberg Law (Sept. 1, 2026), https://perma.cc/V2AC-P8NW.
[2] S.B. 574, 2025–2026 Reg. Sess. § 1 (Cal. 2026) (proposing Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068.1(a)(2)).
[3] Id. (proposing Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068.1(a)(3)(A)).
[4] Id. (proposing Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068.1(a)(3)(B)).
[5] Id. (proposing Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068.1(a)(3)(C)).
[6] Id. § 3 (proposing Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 128.7(b)(2)(A)–(B)).
[7] Id. (proposing Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 128.7(c)–(e)); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6103.
[8] Id. §§ 2, 4 (proposing Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6173; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 180).
This post is based on a Sullivan & Cromwell LLP memorandum, “California Legislature Passes Rules on Generative AI Use by Legal Practitioners,” dated September 11, 2026, and available here.