Product

Solutions

Security

Company

Resources

Request a Demo

Product

Solutions

Security

Company

Resources

Request a Demo

Article

2026-10-27

California SB 574: what the new AI law means for lawyers and court filings

California SB 574 takes effect January 1, 2027. Here is what it requires of lawyers using generative AI, what changes for citations and arbitrators, and what litigation teams need to settle before filing.

Consider a hypothetical California superior court matter in December 2026: a senior associate prepares a summary judgment opposition using an AI-assisted research memo, a junior associate checks most citations, and the partner will sign and file in January. The week before filing, the partner asks which attorney must personally verify every citation and what the court should be told about AI use. Meanwhile, in another matter, opposing counsel’s reply quotes deposition testimony missing from the cited page.

California Senate Bill 574 is enacted law, Chapter 858, Statutes of 2026, signed September 30, 2026, effective January 1, 2027. It bars delegating legal practice to generative AI and requires protecting confidential inputs, verifying and correcting output, and disclosing AI use to courts for submitted documents. The responsible attorney must personally verify every citation in covered California court filings. At Turbo Law, we see verification as the immediate preparation task.

What is California SB 574 and when does it take effect?

SB 574 takes effect January 1, 2027. The chaptered text records approval and filing with the Secretary of State on September 30, 2026; without an urgency clause, the effective date follows the regular-session rule in California Constitution, article IV, section 8(c)(1).

It touches five sections: adding Business and Professions Code section 6068.1, amending section 6173, amending Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, and adding Code of Civil Procedure sections 180 and 1282.1.

Reuters reported that California was the first state to enact a law targeting lawyers’ and arbitrators’ AI use, while noting that some attorneys considered parts duplicative of existing obligations. Our earlier discussion of AI disclosure rules for court filings predates enactment.

The January filing date matters.

A team preparing an opposition in December should resolve its January verification and disclosure arrangements before the brief reaches the partner’s signature queue.

What does Business and Professions Code section 6068.1 require of attorneys?

Starting January 1, 2027, section 6068.1 will prohibit delegating the practice of law to generative AI and impose duties on attorneys using it. The statute leaves “delegate” undefined.

It defines generative AI by its ability to generate synthetic content, including text or images, that emulates the structure and characteristics of its training data. Existing duties of reasonable competence and diligence remain intact.

For an attorney using such a system, the duties are:

Protect inputs. Keep confidential, personal identifying and other nonpublic information out of systems that do not meet the statutory access restriction.
Verify output. Take reasonable steps to check accuracy, expressly including case and statutory citations.
Correct errors. Take reasonable steps to correct erroneous or hallucinated output in material the attorney uses.
Disclose to the court. Disclose generative AI use for documents submitted to the court.
Consider public disclosure. Consider whether to disclose AI use when it creates content provided to the public.

The verification obligation therefore reaches beyond legal citations. An invented description of testimony or a mistaken account of a medical record also needs attention. A hallucination does not become usable because its citation looks plausible.

As Ropes & Gray explains, these duties will be enforceable through State Bar discipline; section 6068.1 supplies no separate penalty mechanism.

What is California SB 574 and when does it take effect?

The January filing date matters.

A team preparing an opposition in December should resolve its January verification and disclosure arrangements before the brief reaches the partner’s signature queue.

What does Business and Professions Code section 6068.1 require of attorneys?

Starting January 1, 2027, section 6068.1 will prohibit delegating the practice of law to generative AI and impose duties on attorneys using it. The statute leaves “delegate” undefined.

For an attorney using such a system, the duties are:

Protect inputs. Keep confidential, personal identifying and other nonpublic information out of systems that do not meet the statutory access restriction.
Verify output. Take reasonable steps to check accuracy, expressly including case and statutory citations.
Correct errors. Take reasonable steps to correct erroneous or hallucinated output in material the attorney uses.
Disclose to the court. Disclose generative AI use for documents submitted to the court.
Consider public disclosure. Consider whether to disclose AI use when it creates content provided to the public.

As Ropes & Gray explains, these duties will be enforceable through State Bar discipline; section 6068.1 supplies no separate penalty mechanism.

What counts as confidential information under SB 574?

The restriction covers confidential, personal identifying and other nonpublic information, with access limited to the attorney and authorized people under confidentiality obligations. The test concerns who can access the information entered into the system.

Look at the actual file.

Medical records contain diagnoses and psychiatric information. Financial productions contain account numbers. Witness contact sheets hold addresses and telephone numbers; identification documents may disclose birth dates, driver’s license numbers, Social Security numbers or criminal justice identifiers. The statutory list also includes “Any other content sealed by court order or deemed confidential by court rule or statute”.

For personally identifiable information, removing a witness’s name alone may leave other listed information in the document. The inquiry needs to cover what the attorney actually uploads.

Morgan Lewis emphasizes that a public or enterprise label does not answer the access question. A firm assessing its duty of confidentiality when using AI should examine access arrangements and the obligations binding authorized recipients. Our separate article, Is AI use privileged?, addresses privilege and work-product questions.

What does the new citation rule in CCP 128.7 require?

The amended CCP 128.7 will require personal verification of every citation in a covered California court filing, regardless of whether AI supplied it. Section 128.7(b)(2)(A) states:

“A brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court shall not contain any citations that an attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally verified, including any citation provided by generative artificial intelligence”.

That includes citations carried over from an old brief. The filing requirement applies regardless of where the attorney is licensed.

Neither “personally verified” nor “attorney responsible for submitting” is defined. In the hypothetical opposition, assigning most of the cite-check to a junior associate leaves the partner’s question unresolved: who bears the statutory responsibility, and what has that attorney personally checked? An internal assignment can organize the work without settling the statute’s meaning.

Citation verification also requires looking past the citation’s appearance. Opening the deposition page in the other matter exposes the missing quotation; whether AI caused the problem may remain unknown.

The existing sanctions framework will apply. A sanctions motion is subject to a 21-day safe harbor before filing, allowing correction or withdrawal. Existing section 128.7(c)(1) already says: “Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, associates, and employees”. That language will also reach violations of the new citation requirement; it is not a newly created firm-liability rule. Our article on sanctions and supervising attorneys addresses the separate supervision discussion.

Under section 128.7(d)(1), monetary sanctions may not be awarded against a represented party for violating subdivision (b)(2).

The discovery exception remains.

Section 128.7(g) excludes disclosures and discovery requests, responses, objections and motions. Section 6068.1’s duty to verify and correct AI output will still apply to an attorney’s use of that output in discovery material.

Who does SB 574 apply to?

The attorney duties will reach California-licensed lawyers, including in-house counsel; the citation provision will reach attorneys submitting covered papers in California courts regardless of licensure. Employment by a company creates no exception to section 6068.1.

Ropes & Gray considers application to pro hac vice counsel likely, citing California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(f), and disciplinary jurisdiction over those appearances. That is an interpretation. Section 6068.1 does not expressly resolve their status.

Separate provisions address arbitrators, while the Judicial Council of California receives a direction concerning judicial AI guidance.

For federal courts in California, the CCP amendment does not address federal filings. California licensees still carry their section 6068.1 professional duties. Counsel should check the applicable federal local rules and standing orders rather than treat the state procedural amendment as a federal filing rule.

What changes for arbitrators and judges?

Arbitrators will face a prohibition on delegating any part of decisionmaking to generative AI, while the Judicial Council must revisit its judicial guidance. Those are different statutory instructions.

Under section 1282.1, an arbitrator also may not rely on AI-generated information outside the record without appropriate advance disclosure to the parties and, as far as practical, an opportunity for them to comment on its use. In arbitration, that notice protects both parties. Neither should have to infer whether outside AI-generated material entered the decisionmaking.

Section 180 directs the Judicial Council to publicly revisit, and revise as necessary, Standard 10.80 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration, which has applied to judicial officers since September 1, 2025. We cover that framework separately in Courts are writing AI rules for judges too.

The State Bar of California’s proposed AI-related comment amendments have not been adopted. They concern Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.4, 1.6, 3.3, 5.1 and 5.3; public comment periods closed May 4 and August 6, 2026, and adoption requires Board of Trustees action and California Supreme Court approval. Updated practical guidance was approved May 14, 2026. Our AI ethics opinions article covers the broader ethics discussion.

How can a litigation team verify AI-assisted work before filing?

Start by recording who the team identifies as responsible for submitting the brief and keeping the underlying sources accessible throughout drafting. An AI use policy for law firms should make those assignments explicit without pretending to define the statute.

For the summary judgment opposition, we would keep each factual assertion and quotation connected to its source page. The attorney should be able to open the deposition passage from the draft, read the surrounding testimony and correct the sentence if the source does not support it. Finding the page is only the beginning.

Our Review capability reads the whole matter file, including pleadings, productions, correspondence, transcripts, expert reports and prior team work. It builds a connected picture of the case with facts linked to source pages and lines, adapts to the case type, and updates as records arrive. That source attribution keeps the document behind a statement available for attorney inspection.

Draft prepares work from the matter, the firm’s prior briefs and jurisdictional rules, including local rules, for attorney review. Research begins with the matter’s facts. Every case or statutory citation still needs the attorney’s check against the authority itself, even when the draft arrives with links.

The Assistant returns line-cited work product from multistep assignments and says when the file does not support an answer. Its exportable assignment history records what was asked, read and produced. Counsel can draw on that record when assessing disclosure; the history does not decide what the court must be told.

For the input-access review, our Security page describes zero training on client data, logically isolated client environments, staff access requiring a support ticket and client approval, and logging of every access, query and export. It also addresses SOC 2 Type II. Firms should examine those controls against section 6068.1(a)(3)(A), including the arrangements for their own use.

Turbo Law proposes, the team verifies, partners decide, with the source one click away.

We do not decide disclosure, verify citations on the lawyer’s behalf or file documents. No tool makes a firm compliant. The undefined terms remain questions for lawyers, courts and the State Bar, and Turbo Law does not give legal advice. Before the January opposition is filed, counsel should read the statute and applicable rules and standing orders, identify unresolved citations, and finish checking them.

FAQ

Does SB 574 apply to filings made before January 1, 2027?

Its new requirements take effect January 1, 2027. Earlier filings remain subject to existing duties and applicable court requirements. A December drafting date should not lead a team to overlook the requirements for its January filing.

Does SB 574 ban lawyers from using AI?

There is no categorical ban. The law prohibits delegating the practice of law to generative AI while imposing duties on attorneys who use it. Where assistance ends and delegation begins is undefined.

Does the citation rule apply if no AI was used?

Yes. The new paragraph covers every citation in a filing within section 128.7’s scope, including citations drawn from prior briefs or supplied by colleagues. Its discovery exception remains in place.

Is there a required form for AI disclosure?

SB 574 does not prescribe disclosure wording, format, timing or placement. Its direction is to disclose generative AI use to the court for documents submitted; it also leaves questions about the degree of assistance that triggers disclosure. Before filing, check the applicable court rules and standing orders rather than assume a firm-created statement answers every requirement.

Sources

FAQ

Does SB 574 apply to filings made before January 1, 2027?

Does SB 574 ban lawyers from using AI?

There is no categorical ban. The law prohibits delegating the practice of law to generative AI while imposing duties on attorneys who use it. Where assistance ends and delegation begins is undefined.

Does the citation rule apply if no AI was used?

Is there a required form for AI disclosure?