A convincing legal argument can unravel when the authority supporting it does not exist. Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has made that risk more immediate, producing citations, quotations, and factual assertions that can appear reliable until someone checks the underlying source. California's newly enacted Senate Bill 574 addresses that problem while imposing broader duties concerning confidentiality, disclosure, and professional responsibility.
Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 574 on September 30, 2026. The law takes effect January 1, 2027. It adds Business and Professions Code section 6068.1, and establishes additional requirements involving arbitrators, judicial administration, and certified alternative dispute resolution providers. For litigators, the legislation calls for changes in how legal work is prepared, reviewed, and submitted. The statute requires disclosure of generative AI use without prescribing a separate verification declaration, and its personal citation-verification requirement extends to covered filings even when no AI was used.
Professional Judgment Remains with the Attorney
New Business and Professions Code § 6068.1 expressly preserves attorneys' duties of reasonable competence and diligence as well as prohibiting the practice of law to generative AI. It then establishes requirements for attorneys who uses the technology to assist their practice. § 6068.1(a)(1)-(3).
These provisions permit assistance while retaining attorney responsibility for the work. A generated draft may provide a starting point, but counsel must evaluate its legal reasoning, factual assumptions, and suitability for the client's circumstances. Accepting polished language without examining those foundations would leave the central professional task undone. This distinction is critical and goes beyond brief writing. Lawyers using AI to summarize records, analyze contracts, or prepare advice must exercise their own judgment in the resulting work. The statute's general attorney duties are not limited to documents filed in litigation.
Verification Requires More than Confirming That a Case Exists
- 6068.1(a)(3)(B) requires attorneys to take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of generative AI outputs, including case and statutory citations, and to correct erroneous or hallucinated output in material they use. The obligation reaches more than fabricated authorities. An existing opinion may be inaccurately summarized. A quotation may differ from the source. A chronology may assign testimony to the wrong witness or convert an allegation into an established fact. A statutory analysis may rely on language that no longer governs.
The law does not dictate a particular review process, but verification requires going back to the source. For a summary of deposition testimony, that means checking the transcript to confirm that the summary accurately reflects the witness’s testimony. For legal analysis, it means reading the cited authorities, confirming that they remain good law, and assessing whether they support the argument in the context presented. Asking AI to double-check its own work is no substitute for that review.
Personal Citation Verification Applies Regardless of Source
The amendment to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 imposes a distinct requirement. Under new subdivision (b)(2)(A), a brief, pleading, motion, or other paper filed in court may not contain citations that an attorney responsible for submitting has not personally verified. The provision expressly includes citations supplied by generative AI, but its language is not confined to them.
That breadth has consequences for ordinary litigation workflows. Authorities drawn from an earlier brief, a research memorandum, a colleague's draft, or an established template still require personal verification by an attorney responsible for submission. A process that checks citations only when a drafter reports using AI will leave a substantial part of the statutory obligation unaddressed.
The statute does not define every step required for personal verification. As a practical matter, counsel should consult the cited source, confirm that it supports the stated proposition, and check quotations and pinpoint references. Appropriate review should also account for subsequent history and other developments affecting the authority's use. Research assistance remains valuable, but firms should ensure that the attorney responsible for the submission personally completes the required verification.
Disclosure is Required, but the Statute Does Not Prescribe a Declaration
Section 6068.1(a)(3)(C) requires disclosure of generative AI use to the court for documents submitted to the court. It separately requires attorneys to consider disclosure when generative AI is used to create content provided to the public. The signed legislation does not prescribe a particular disclosure form, require attachment of prompts or outputs, or establish a separate sworn declaration certifying that verification occurred. Section 128.7(a) continues to provide that, except as otherwise required by law, pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by an affidavit. Disclosure, personal citation verification, and the certification associated with presenting papers to the court are related obligations, but they should be analyzed separately.
The law leaves several practical questions unanswered, including whether limited editorial assistance requires disclosure and what form, placement, and level of detail a disclosure must take. Counsel should therefore consult the applicable court rules and judicial orders before relying on standardized firm language. Until those requirements are clarified, firms should track AI use during drafting and evaluate disclosure obligations for each submission. Any disclosure should accurately describe the nature and extent of that use while preserving client confidences and protecting litigation strategy.
Confidentiality Depends on Access Restrictions
Section 6068.1(a)(3)(A) restricts entry of confidential, personally identifying, and other nonpublic information into generative AI systems. The restriction turns on whether access to the information is limited to the attorney and authorized persons under obligations to protect its confidentiality. The analysis therefore requires attention to the actual system and its terms. Firms should examine access permissions, provider obligations, retention practices, and relevant settings before approving protected information for input.
The statute's definition of personal identifying information is broad. It includes medical and psychiatric information, financial information, account numbers, dates of birth, addresses, and telephone numbers of parties, witnesses, victims, and court personnel. It also encompasses content sealed by court order or made confidential by rule or statute section 6068.1(b)(2).These categories appear throughout routine litigation files. Removing a client's name may leave substantial protected information in a medical chronology, claim summary, or witness interview. Decisions about permissible inputs should occur before those materials are uploaded.
Sanctions Remain Subject to Section 128.7's Procedure
By placing the personal citation andverification requirement within Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7(b), SB 574 makes violations subject to that statute's sanctions framework. After notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, a court may impose appropriate sanctions on responsible attorneys, firms, or parties, subject to the statute's conditions and limitations. Absent exceptional circumstances, law firms are jointly responsible for violations committed by partners, associates, and employees. § 128.7(c)
Potential sanctions include non-monetary directives, penalties payable to the court, and reasonable fees and expenses directly resulting from the violation. The statute retains procedural protections, including the separate-motion requirement and the applicable opportunity to withdraw or correct challenged materials. Its amended text also prohibits monetary sanctions against a represented party for violation of subdivision (b)(2). §128.7(d)(1). However, that protection does not extend to the responsible attorney or law firm.
A violation of the new Business and Professions Code disclosure requirement is not automatically a violation of § 128.7's citation provision. The applicable duty and enforcement basis must be identified. Discovery also requires separate analysis. §128.7(g) excludes disclosures and discovery requests, responses, objections, and motions from that section. That exclusion does not eliminate the broader duties imposed by § 6068.1 when attorneys use generative AI in discovery work.
Arbitrators Face Separate Restrictions
Code of Civil Procedure § 1282.1 now prohibits arbitrators from delegating any part of their decision-making process to generative AI. It also bars reliance on AI-generated information outside the record without appropriate advance disclosure and, as far as practical, an opportunity for the parties to comment. For counsel, these provisions support addressing AI use at the outset of an arbitration. Procedural discussions can clarify how the neutral will handle the technology and any proposed use of material outside the record. Disclosure does not override the separate prohibition on delegating decision-making.
The legislation also directs Judicial Council to revisit Standard 10.80 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration and revise complaint procedures within the State Bar's voluntary certification program for alternative dispute resolution providers. These provisions extend the legislation beyond attorney drafting practices.
Preparing for January 2027
Before the law takes effect, firms should translate their AI policies into clear procedures that reflect how their attorneys and staff actually work. That process should include:
- Identifying the AI tools currently in use, including generative features embedded in legal research platforms and office software;
- Establishing what information may be entered into those tools and under what conditions;
- Assigning responsibility for reviewing AI-assisted work; and
- Incorporating personal citation verification and applicable disclosure requirements into the filing process.
A brief internal record identifying the reviewing attorney, the sources consulted, and the disclosure determination can improve coordination and reduce uncertainty as filing deadlines approach. Although SB 574 does not require a particular verification log, documenting those steps can help teams confirm that review is complete and identify any remaining issues before submission.
For defense counsel and claims professionals, these practices also have implications for budgeting, staffing, and supervision. Drafting efficiencies should be assessed together with the attorney time necessary to verify the resulting work. Outside counsel guidelines should clearly address permissible AI uses, confidentiality safeguards, and responsibility for substantive review, with billing expectations that account for both efficiency and accuracy.
SB 574 places express statutory obligations on attorneys who use generative AI. Compliance requires careful decisions about the information supplied to these tools, substantive review of their output, personal verification of citations in covered filings, and disclosure where required. Integrating those obligations into everyday practice will allow firms to realize the technology’s efficiencies while maintaining the professional judgment and accountability clients and courts expect.
