California AI Law: New Rules for Attorneys

California will require lawyers to disclose their use of generative AI in every document filed with the state's courts beginning January 1, 2027. Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 574 into law, making it the first statute in the nation to specifically regulate attorneys' use of these tools.

The legislation imposes a statutory duty on legal professionals. It states that an attorney shall not delegate the practice of law to generative artificial intelligence. While the law does not define what constitutes delegation, it clarifies that a licensed attorney must make legal judgments and own the final work product. The statute preserves existing duties of competence and diligence, meaning AI can assist in drafting, but it cannot replace professional review.

A key restriction involves confidential information. The law bars attorneys from entering confidential, personal identifying, or nonpublic information into generative AI systems unless access to those inputs is strictly limited. Only the attorney and authorized personnel under obligation to protect the data may access the inputs. Enterprise tools with strong confidentiality terms and limited data retention likely satisfy this requirement. Consumer tools that allow providers to retain, review, or train on user inputs likely do not.

Attorneys must take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of all AI outputs. This duty extends beyond case citations to include factual summaries, deposition digests, contract analysis, and research memos. The law applies to any material used by the attorney, including client advice and internal work products. A hallucinated case in a client memo is now a statutory issue in California, even if the memo never reaches a judge.

The disclosure requirement represents the most immediate change to daily practice. Courts in other jurisdictions have adopted standing orders requiring AI disclosure, but those orders are often specific to individual judges. SB 574 establishes a statewide obligation for every document submitted to a California court. The law does not specify how detailed the disclosure must be or whether incidental uses count. Until courts or the state provide further guidance, lawyers should assume any meaningful use of generative AI triggers the requirement.

The bill adds teeth to these rules through sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.7. A filing shall not contain any citations that the responsible attorney has not personally verified. This includes citations provided by generative AI. The phrase personally verified suggests that relying on a paralegal, junior associate, or citation-checking tool may not be sufficient if the responsible attorney does not confirm the citations.

Procedural safeguards remain in place. The existing 21-day safe harbor allows attorneys to avoid sanctions if they withdraw or correct the challenged paper within 21 days of service of a sanctions motion. Monetary sanctions for citation violations cannot be imposed on a represented party. The financial exposure falls on the attorneys and their firm. A law firm is jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, associates, and employees, absent exceptional circumstances.

Law firms with attorneys practicing in California must update their AI policies before the effective date. This includes attorneys admitted pro hac vice. Updated policies should define approved tools, specify what information can be entered into which systems, and mandate attorney review of AI output. Firms should also adopt standard disclosure language for California filings and build verification steps into their filing checklists. Brendan Palfreyman, leader of Harris Beach Murtha’s Artificial Intelligence Industry Team, advises firms to review data retention and human review terms for every AI tool they approve.

The law takes effect on January 1, 2027. Firms practicing in multiple states are considering applying these rules firm-wide to avoid maintaining separate standards. The statute does not define the scope of delegation, leaving that line to be drawn through State Bar guidance and discipline cases over time.