Part of the AI Regulation News hub.
A California bill that cleared both houses on 31 August would bar attorneys from delegating the practice of law to generative AI, pull unverified citations into the state's existing sanctions machinery, and require disclosure of generative AI use to the court for every document filed
Most AI court rules so far have been standing orders and bar guidance. This bill, which has passed but is not yet law, would put the duties in the statute books and route breaches through a sanctions provision judges already use every day.
Bottom line: SB 574 cleared its final legislative hurdle on 31 August 2026, when Assembly amendments were concurred in 39-0 and the bill was ordered to engrossing and enrolling. It has not been presented to the Governor and is not law. If enacted it would bar delegating the practice of law to generative AI, require verification of every citation, and require disclosure of generative AI use to the court for all documents submitted.
Who this affects: California attorneys and the firms that supervise them, arbitrators, and litigation support vendors. The disclosure duty as drafted reaches all documents submitted to a court, not only briefs that cite authority.
Issue date: Final legislative action 31 August 2026. The operative text quoted here is the Assembly-amended version published 21 August 2026.
What changed: Nothing yet. California already has State Bar guidance on verifying AI output. What this bill would change is the instrument class: from guidance to the Business and Professions Code and the Code of Civil Procedure, with sanctions attached.
Analysis: The drafting choice that matters is the amendment to section 128.7. Rather than creating a new AI sanctions regime, it would make an unverified citation a defect in the filing itself, so courts would use machinery they already know instead of reaching for inherent authority.
Primary sources: California SB 574 bill status, Legislature's own record · SB 574 bill text
- Instrument
- Senate Bill 574 (Umberg), attorneys, arbitrators, judicial officers and alternative dispute resolution providers
- Authority
- California Legislature
- Jurisdiction
- California
- Status
- Passed both houses. On 31 August 2026 Assembly amendments were concurred in, 39 ayes to 0 noes, and the bill was ordered to engrossing and enrolling. It has NOT been presented to the Governor and there is no chapter number.
- Would amend
- Business and Professions Code section 6173, which governs the State Bar voluntary certification programme for alternative dispute resolution firms, providers and practitioners; and Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7
- Would add
- Business and Professions Code section 6068.1; Code of Civil Procedure sections 180 and 1282.1
- Bindingness
- None at present. The bill is drafted in mandatory terms but has no legal force unless and until it is signed and reaches its operative date.
- Editorial Note
- Informational analysis for working professionals, not legal advice. Confirm how any rule applies to your situation with qualified counsel.
- Primary source
- https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB574
Where the bill actually is
On 31 August 2026 the California Assembly's amendments to SB 574 were concurred in by 39 ayes to 0 noes, and the bill was ordered to engrossing and enrolling. That is the last entry on the Legislature's own history table.
It matters what that entry does not say. The bill has not been presented to the Governor, no chapter number exists, and nothing in it binds anyone today. Every duty described below is drafted in mandatory terms and would take effect only on signature and the statutory operative date.
There is a specific reason to be careful here. On 1 September, trade coverage reported that the bill had gone to the Governor on 31 August and that he had until 30 September to act. The legislative record does not support that. Ordered to engrossing and enrolling is a step before presentment, not presentment itself. This desk could not verify a presentment date or an action deadline from a primary source, and is not repeating one.
What it would require of attorneys
A new section 6068.1 of the Business and Professions Code would carry four duties.
It would bar an attorney from delegating the practice of law to generative AI. It would bar entering confidential, personal identifying or other nonpublic information into a generative AI system whose access is not restricted to the attorney and authorised persons. It would require reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of generative AI outputs, including all case and statutory citations, and to correct erroneous or hallucinated output.
And it would require disclosure of generative AI use to the court for all documents submitted to it. That is the provision most likely to change daily practice, because as drafted it is not limited to filings that cite authority. A declaration drafted with AI assistance would be within it.
None of these are in force. They would apply only if the bill is signed.
The sanctions hook, which is the clever part
The bill would amend Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, the provision California lawyers already know as the analogue to Federal Rule 11.
As amended, subdivision (b)(2)(A) would provide that 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.
The effect, if enacted, would be that a fabricated citation is a defect in the filing rather than a matter for a judge's inherent authority. Courts would reach for a sanctions provision with settled procedure, a safe harbour and known standards, instead of improvising. That is a quieter design than a bespoke AI rule and probably a more durable one.
One further amendment is worth noticing. Subdivision (d)(1) would provide that monetary sanctions may not be awarded against a represented party for a subdivision (b)(2) violation. The exposure would land on counsel, not on the client who never saw the brief.
Arbitrators, and the Judicial Council
A new Code of Civil Procedure section 1282.1 would bar an arbitrator from delegating any part of the decisionmaking process to a generative AI tool, and from relying on generative AI generated information outside the record without prior disclosure to the parties. The bill pairs that with an amendment to Business and Professions Code section 6173, the provision governing the State Bar voluntary certification programme for alternative dispute resolution firms and practitioners, so the arbitration side of the bill reaches both the conduct and the certification route.
That is a narrower and more precise prohibition than it first appears. It does not bar an arbitrator from using AI. It bars delegating the decision and bars undisclosed reliance on material that is not in the record, which are the two things a party could not otherwise detect.
A new section 180 would require the Judicial Council to publicly revisit and revise standard 10.80 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration to reflect the further development of generative AI. That is a direction to a rulemaking body rather than a rule, and it would produce its own instrument later.
What to do about it
Nothing is required today, and a firm that changes its policies this week is responding to a bill that has not been signed. The useful step now is to find out whether your current practice would survive the disclosure duty as drafted, because that is the provision with the widest reach and the shortest lead time.
Ask a narrower question than whether your firm uses AI. Ask which documents leaving the firm would need a disclosure line, on a reading that covers all documents submitted to a court.
For citation verification, the exposure would sit with the responsible attorney under a sanctions provision, and the bill would remove monetary sanctions against a represented party for that category. A supervising attorney cannot delegate that risk to the person who ran the search.
Watch for presentment and signature rather than for the 30 September date circulating in trade coverage. The Legislature's own status page is the record that will show it.
California SB 574 cleared its final legislative step on 31 August 2026 when Assembly amendments were concurred in 39-0 and the bill was ordered to engrossing and enrolling. It has not been presented to the Governor, there is no chapter number, and nothing in it binds anyone today. If enacted it would add Business and Professions Code section 6068.1, barring delegation of the practice of law to generative AI, barring confidential input into systems without restricted access, requiring verification of generative AI output including all case and statutory citations, and requiring disclosure of generative AI use to the court for all documents submitted. It would amend Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 so that a filing may not contain a citation the responsible attorney has not personally verified, including any citation provided by generative artificial intelligence, which routes fabricated citations through existing sanctions machinery rather than a bespoke AI rule, and would bar monetary sanctions against a represented party for that category. A new section 1282.1 would bar arbitrators from delegating decisionmaking to generative AI or relying on undisclosed generative AI material outside the record, and a new section 180 would require the Judicial Council to revise standard 10.80. Trade coverage reporting that the bill went to the Governor on 31 August with a 30 September deadline is not supported by the legislative record.
Source File
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB574
Open the Legislature's own bill status page for SB 574 and read the history table rather than trade coverage. Confirm the last action, 08/31/26, Assembly amendments concurred in, ayes 39 noes 0, ordered to engrossing and enrolling, and confirm that no presentment or chapter entry follows it. Then open the bill text, the Assembly-amended version published 21 August 2026, and find four things: new Business and Professions Code section 6068.1 with its delegation bar, confidentiality bar, verification duty and court disclosure duty; the amendment to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7(b)(2)(A) with the phrase including any citation provided by generative artificial intelligence; the amendment to 128.7(d)(1) excluding monetary sanctions against a represented party; and new sections 1282.1 on arbitrators and 180 on the Judicial Council and standard 10.80.
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. California SB 574, proposed amendment to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7(b)(2)(A), text published 21 August 2026
FAQ
Is this law in California now?
No. On 31 August 2026 the bill was ordered to engrossing and enrolling after Assembly amendments were concurred in. It has not been presented to the Governor, there is no chapter number, and none of its duties bind anyone today.
Did it go to the Governor with a 30 September deadline?
Trade coverage reported that on 1 September, and the legislative record does not support it. Ordered to engrossing and enrolling is a step before presentment. This desk could not verify a presentment date or an action deadline from a primary source and does not state one.
What would the disclosure duty cover?
As drafted, disclosure of generative AI use to the court for all documents submitted to it. It is not limited on its face to filings that cite authority, which is why it is the provision with the widest practical reach.
How would fabricated citations be handled?
Through Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 rather than a new AI regime. The amendment would make it a violation for a filing to contain a citation the responsible attorney has not personally verified, including any citation provided by generative AI, so courts would use an existing sanctions provision with settled procedure.
Would clients be exposed to sanctions?
The bill would amend section 128.7(d)(1) so that monetary sanctions may not be awarded against a represented party for that category of violation. The exposure would sit with counsel.
What about arbitrators?
A new Code of Civil Procedure section 1282.1 would bar an arbitrator from delegating any part of the decisionmaking process to a generative AI tool, and from relying on generative AI generated information outside the record without prior disclosure to the parties.
Related briefings
Sponsored Training
Practical AI training for regulated professionals, built around verification, documentation and a defensible process. See the courses.