CaliforniaLawyers would check generative AI output used in legal work
Once in effect, the signed law would bar lawyers from letting generative AI practice law for them and require reasonable accuracy checks when they use it to help.
What it does
Lawyers could use generative AI to help, but could not let it practice law for them. They would have to check its output reasonably, fix errors in material they use, and limit access to private information they enter.
Lawyers responsible for court filings would have to check each citation themselves, including AI suggestions. The rule would not cover disclosures or papers used to gather evidence.
Arbitrators could not let generative AI make any part of a decision. Before relying on AI information from outside the case record, they would have to tell the parties and let them comment when practical.
The State Bar would set procedures for ethics complaints against certified dispute providers. Proceedings would stay private, though after a decision the Bar could release information that reveals no confidential or privileged communications.
Argument forOnce in effect, lawyers’ required checks could reduce wrong citations in court papers that judges and people in a case rely on.
Argument againstPrivate ethics complaints could limit public insight into certified providers; after a decision, the State Bar may release records that reveal no confidential or privileged communications.
More detail
Lawyers would be barred from letting generative AI practice law for them. These duties would cover lawyers using generative AI to help with legal work. They would have to take reasonable steps to check AI output and fix errors in material they use. They could enter confidential, identifying, or other nonpublic information only into AI systems that limit access to them and authorized people who must protect it. They would disclose their AI use to the court for documents they submit and consider disclosing it for public content.
Lawyers responsible for court filings would have to check each citation themselves. It would cover citations in briefs, motions, and other papers filed in any court. The rule would not cover disclosures or discovery papers, which parties use to exchange evidence.
Arbitrators would be barred from letting generative AI make any part of a decision. The rules would cover arbitrators deciding disputes. Before relying on AI information from outside the case record, they would have to tell the parties and, when practical, let them comment.
The State Bar would set procedures to handle ethics complaints against certified dispute providers. The complaints would concern State Bar-certified firms and people who help resolve disputes outside court. The State Bar or a professional group it approves would receive, investigate, and resolve complaints. Complaint proceedings would stay private. A court could order information or records from a proceeding disclosed. Records provided for complaints would be exempt from state public records requests. After a complaint decision, the State Bar could publicly release information or records only if they reveal no confidential or privileged communications.
Where do you stand?
Choose your position
Tell your reps
Take a position to see your representatives and ways to contact them.
Where it stands
- Introduced
- Passed Senate
- Passed Assembly
- To Governor
- Became Law
Looking ahead
No hearings or votes scheduled.
History
- 2026
- Sep 30Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 858, Statutes of 2026.Latest
- Sep 30Approved by the Governor Gavin Newsom.Became Law
- Sep 9Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 2 p.m.To Governor
- Aug 31Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 39. Noes 0.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.Major
- Vote recorded SB 574 Umberg Senate Third Reading By Bauer-Kahan. Result: pass.Lower
- Vote recorded Unfinished Business SB574 Umberg et al. Concurrence. Result: pass.Upper
- Aug 31In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
- Aug 31Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 75. Noes 0. Page 6981.) Ordered to the Senate.Passed Assembly
- Aug 21Ordered to third reading.Minor
- Aug 21Read third time and amended.Major
- Aug 21Assembly Rule 69(b)(1) suspended. (Ayes 55. Noes 17. Page 6295.)
- Aug 17Read second time. Ordered to third reading.Minor
- Aug 13Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.Major
- Vote recorded Do pass as amended. Result: pass.Lower
- Aug 13From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (August 13).Major
- Aug 13Assembly Rule 63 suspended.
- Aug 5August 5 set for first hearing. Placed on suspense file.
- Aug 3Joint Rule 62(a) suspended.
- Aug 3Re-referred to Com. on APPR. pursuant to Joint Rule 10.5.Minor
- Aug 3Read second time. Ordered to third reading.Minor
- Jul 2Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.Major
- Jul 2From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (July 1).Major
- Jul 1July 1 hearing postponed by committee.
- Vote recorded Do pass as amended. Result: pass.Lower
- Jun 30From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on P. & C.P. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (June 30). Re-referred to Com. on P. & C.P.Minor
- Vote recorded Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Privacy and Consumer Protection]. Result: pass.Lower
- Jun 22Assembly Rule 56 suspended.
- Jun 22From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.Major
- Jun 18Pursuant to Assembly Rule 51.
- Jun 18Referred to Coms. on JUD. and P. & C.P.Minor
- Jan 29In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.Minor
- Vote recorded Special Consent. Result: pass.Upper
- Jan 29Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 3323.) Ordered to the Assembly.Passed Senate
- Jan 26Ordered to special consent calendar.
- Jan 22Read second time. Ordered to third reading.Minor
- Vote recorded Do pass. Result: pass.Upper
- Jan 22From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 3269.) (January 22).Minor
- Jan 21Set for hearing January 22.
- Jan 20January 20 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.
- Vote recorded Placed on suspense file. Result: pass.Upper
- Jan 15Set for hearing January 20.
- Jan 14From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 13. Noes 0. Page 3214.) (January 13). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.Minor
- Jan 13
- Vote recorded Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]. Result: pass.Upper
- Jan 6Set for hearing January 13.
- Jan 5Re-referred to Coms. on JUD. and APPR.Minor
- Jan 5Re-referred to Com. on RLS.Minor
- Jan 5Withdrawn from committee.Major
- Jan 5From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on HOUSING.Major
- 2025
- Apr 2Re-referred to Coms. on HOUSING and L. GOV.Minor
- Mar 24From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.Major
- Mar 5Referred to Com. on RLS.Minor
- Feb 21From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 23.
- Feb 20Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.Introduced
AI & PrivacyGovernment & EthicsConsumer Protection