On September 30, 2026, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 574, authored by Senator Thomas Umberg, which regulates the use of generative artificial intelligence (“GenAI”) by attorneys, arbitrators, judicial officers, and alternative dispute resolution providers. The California Legislature had passed the bill unanimously on August 31, 2026.
SB 574 does not prohibit attorneys from using GenAI. Instead, it imposes duties of confidentiality, verification, and disclosure, and prohibits attorneys from delegating the practice of law to GenAI. To date, the profession has regulated GenAI largely through ethics opinions applying existing duties. SB 574 marks a first-in-the-nation shift toward specific statutory regulation of GenAI use in the legal ecosystem.
Key Provisions
Attorney duties. SB 574 provides that an attorney may not “delegate the practice of law to generative artificial intelligence.” (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068.1(a)(2)) An attorney who uses GenAI must:
1. not enter confidential, personal identifying, or other nonpublic information into a GenAI system unless access to that information is restricted to the attorney and persons authorized by the attorney who are bound by confidentiality obligations (§ 6068.1(a)(3)(A));
2. take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of GenAI outputs, including all case and statutory citations, and correct any erroneous or hallucinated output in any material used by the attorney (§ 6068.1(a)(3)(B)); and
3. disclose the use of GenAI to the court for all documents submitted to the court, and consider whether to disclose GenAI use for content provided to the public (§ 6068.1(a)(3)(C)).
The statute makes clear that an attorney’s existing duty to exercise reasonable competence and diligence is not abrogated by these new obligations. (§ 6068.1(a)(1).)
Citation verification. The statute requires attorneys to personally verify any citation included in a brief, pleading, motion, or other paper filed in any court, including citations generated by GenAI. (Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7(b)(2)(A)) Courts may sanction attorneys for violations, subject to a 21-day safe harbor during which the attorney may withdraw or correct the document. (§ 128.7(c)) Because this provision applies to any filing in any California court, it appears to reach counsel admitted pro hac vice.
Arbitrators. SB 574 also prohibits an arbitrator from delegating any part of their decision-making process to GenAI. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1282.1(b)(1)) In addition, an arbitrator may not rely on GenAI-generated information outside the record without first making appropriate disclosures to the parties in the arbitration, and, as far as practical, must allow the parties to comment on its use. (§ 1282.1(b)(2)) The statute expressly preserves an arbitrator’s existing duty of neutrality and duty to exercise reasonable competence and diligence. (§ 1282.1(a))
Judicial Council. The statute directs the Judicial Council to publicly revisit the California Standards of Judicial Administration to incorporate any necessary changes reflecting the further development of GenAI. (Code Civ. Proc. § 180)
Practical Implications
Tool access controls. The confidentiality duty is a permissions test that turns on who can access the data, not on how a tool is marketed. Enterprise GenAI tools are not prohibited, and an enterprise deployment may satisfy the statute where its contractual and technical controls restrict access to confidential, personal identifying, or other nonpublic information to the attorney and persons the attorney has authorized who are bound by confidentiality obligations. (§ 6068.1(a)(3)(A)) An “enterprise” label or a vendor’s general promise of confidentiality is not, on its own, sufficient. In evaluating whether a GenAI deployment meets this standard, relevant considerations may include workplace sharing settings, vendor access, subprocessor terms, and data retention practices verifiably meet this standard. For example, some organizations have negotiated zero-data-retention protections and prohibitions on providers using client data or other confidential information in GenAI inputs for model training. Tools whose terms permit provider access to or use of inputs may present greater challenges under the statute’s access restriction, depending on the applicable terms and controls.
Supervision of staff and vendors. Because the confidentiality exception extends only to persons authorized by the attorney who are bound by confidentiality obligations, the statute may warrant review of who has access to GenAI workspaces and the confidentiality obligations applicable to those individuals. This may include paralegals, contract attorneys, e-discovery and litigation-support vendors, and other service providers.
Verification protocols. Some firms have begun documenting citation-checking and output-review procedures, particularly for court filings. Because the citation-verification duty is personal to the attorney, firms may wish to consider how their existing review procedures account for the attorney’s individual verification obligation, rather than relying exclusively on review by junior attorneys, paralegals, or GenAI tools.
Court disclosures. The new disclosure requirement may also prompt firms to revisit filing workflows, including how GenAI use is tracked during drafting and how required disclosures are incorporated into court submissions. Firms may also consider whether applicable local rules or standing orders impose additional requirements.
Arbitration practice. Counsel in California arbitrations may encounter disclosures about arbitrators’ GenAI use and may wish to address the issue in preliminary hearings and procedural orders, including by requesting advance notice of any GenAI-generated information outside the record and an opportunity to comment.
We will continue to monitor developments, including any guidance on the scope of the delegation prohibition. If you have questions about SB 574 or its implications for your practice, please contact a member of our Privacy, Cyber, & Data Strategy Team.
