On September 30, 2026, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 574, the first law in the nation to regulate attorneys’ use of generative AI (GenAI). The law does not ban attorneys from using GenAI but instead limits certain uses of GenAI, erects guardrails around other GenAI uses, and requires disclosure of GenAI use in some circumstances. Importantly, the law authorizes sanctions (imposed by courts in some circumstances and the state bar in others) for violation of its requirements. SB 574 may serve as a blueprint for other states as they reckon with the growing role of GenAI in the legal profession.
The law becomes effective January 1, 2027.
The law imposes the following requirements:
Violations may result in sanctions under the Code of Civil Procedure. The state bar may also enforce these core duties against all California-licensed attorneys, including in-house counsel, and those attorneys appearing pro hac vice. The law’s citation-verification rule applies to every paper filed in a California court, regardless of where the filing attorney is licensed. It remains to be seen whether SB 574’s requirement that attorneys disclose GenAI use to the court could be enforced for filings made in out-of-state courts.
To some extent, SB 574 formalizes preexisting standing orders and ethics rules. The Business and Professions Code and the California Rules of Professional Conduct already impose broad duties that seemingly cover the prohibited conduct: the duty of confidentiality encompasses misuse of public technology tools, and the duties of competence, supervision, and diligence address concerns over the delegation of the practice of law to GenAI, as well as attorney negligence in failing to correct GenAI errors.
Further, judges across the country already have issued standing orders that address the use of GenAI. In the Northern District of California, for example, Judge Martínez-Olguín issued a standing order requiring that any submission containing AI-generated content include a certification that counsel has personally verified the content’s accuracy.
SB 574 imposes a new affirmative duty to disclose GenAI use. And unlike standing orders, which can vary from judge to judge, SB 574 provides uniform rules for all attorneys practicing in the state. However, attorneys must still monitor individual standing orders, which may be more restrictive than SB 574.
SB 574 requires that attorneys disclose GenAI use for every document they file in court. However, the law leaves open what level of GenAI use triggers the disclosure requirement.
The text of SB 574 does not distinguish between minor and substantial GenAI uses. As a result, using GenAI to smooth a choppy sentence may trigger the same disclosure duty as using it to draft entire sections of a brief. Similarly, the law does not distinguish between AI-native platforms, such as Chat GPT or Claude, and traditional research tools, such as Westlaw and Lexis, that have added GenAI features.
SB 574 delegates to the Judicial Council the authority to set forth changes to these standards to reflect developments in GenAI. As GenAI becomes more integrated into legal work, guidance from the Judicial Council will become crucial in clarifying the duty to disclose.
To ensure compliance, lawyers practicing in California should consider the following practices: