Part of the AI Regulation News hub.
California SB 574, signed on 30 September 2026 as Chapter 858, bars attorneys from delegating the practice of law to generative AI, pulls unverified citations into the state's existing sanctions machinery, and requires disclosure of generative AI use to the court for every document filed once it takes effect
Most AI court rules so far have been standing orders and bar guidance. This statute, signed on 30 September 2026 as Chapter 858, puts the duties in the statute books. Its bar on unverified citations sits within Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, under which a court may impose sanctions after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond; on the constitutional default rule, which is our inference, the chapter would take effect on 1 January 2027.
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 was presented to the Governor on 9 September 2026, approved on 30 September 2026 and chaptered the same day as Chapter 858, Statutes of 2026. The text states no effective date. Once it takes effect, which on the constitutional default rule (our inference) would be 1 January 2027, 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 pull quote below appears word for word in the enrolled version published 4 September 2026, which followed the Assembly amendments of 21 August 2026.
What changed: The bill was signed and chaptered on 30 September 2026 as Chapter 858. The text states no effective date; on the default rule in Article IV, section 8(c)(1) of the California Constitution it would take effect on 1 January 2027, which is our inference. 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. Enrolled and presented to the Governor on 9 September 2026. Approved by the Governor and chaptered by the Secretary of State on 30 September 2026 as Chapter 858, Statutes of 2026.
- 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
- Enacted statute (Chapter 858, Statutes of 2026), not yet operative. The text states no effective date; on the default rule in Article IV, section 8(c)(1) of the California Constitution it would take effect on 1 January 2027, which is our inference rather than a date in the text.
- 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
Update, 2 October 2026
SB 574 is now law. The Legislature's own history table records two actions on 30 September 2026: "Approved by the Governor." and "Chaptered by Secretary of State." It is Chapter 858, Statutes of 2026. The same table records a step this article could not verify when it was first published: the bill was enrolled and presented to the Governor on 9 September 2026, at 2 p.m.
The Governor's office listed SB 574 (Umberg) in a release published on 30 September 2026, under the heading "Governor Newsom today signed the following legislation". The enrolled text on file, published by the Legislature on 4 September 2026, carries the provisions this article describes: new Business and Professions Code section 6068.1, the amendment to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, and new Code of Civil Procedure sections 180 and 1282.1.
What this desk has not established from the bill itself is the date the duties begin to bind. Neither the enrolled text nor the status page states an effective date, and the status page classes the measure as "Non-Urgency", "Non-Appropriation" and "Non-Tax levy". Article IV, section 8(c)(1) of the California Constitution provides that, except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), "a statute enacted at a regular session shall go into effect on January 1 next following a 90-day period from the date of enactment of the statute". Applying that rule to enactment on 30 September 2026 gives 1 January 2027. That date is our inference from the constitutional default; it is not printed in the bill, the status page or the Governor's release. Until the chapter takes effect, the duties described below are enacted but not yet operative, and the article's "would" wording for them still applies.
One point in the original article needs a narrower form. The article reported that trade coverage on 1 September said the bill reached the Governor on 31 August; this desk has not reopened that trade article. The Legislature's history table shows presentment on 9 September, so a 31 August presentment is not supported by the record.
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. The history table subsequently records presentment on 9 September 2026 and approval and chaptering on 30 September 2026.
It matters what that entry does not say. The bill was presented to the Governor on 9 September 2026 and approved and chaptered on 30 September 2026 as Chapter 858. Its duties are not yet shown to be operative: the text states no effective date. Every duty described below is now enacted and would apply from the chapter's effective date, which the text does not state.
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. The Legislature's history table now records presentment on 9 September 2026 at 2 p.m., not 31 August.
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.
The bill has been signed. These duties would apply from the chapter's effective date, which the text does not state.
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.
Once the chapter takes effect, a fabricated citation would be a defect in the filing under the amended sanctions provision. 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
The bill is signed, and the text states no effective date. On the constitutional default rule, which is our inference, the duties would apply from 1 January 2027. 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.
Presentment (9 September 2026) and signature (30 September 2026) are now on the Legislature's own status page, which records Chapter 858, Statutes of 2026.
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 was presented to the Governor on 9 September 2026 and approved and chaptered on 30 September 2026 as Chapter 858, Statutes of 2026; the text states no effective date. As enacted, and once it takes effect (1 January 2027 on the constitutional default rule, our inference), 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. The legislative record shows presentment on 9 September 2026 and approval on 30 September 2026. This article earlier reported a trade account of presentment on 31 August; this desk has not reopened that trade article, and the record does not show presentment on that date.
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 08/31/26 entry, Assembly amendments concurred in, ayes 39 noes 0, then the 09/09/26 entry, enrolled and presented to the Governor at 2 p.m., and the two 09/30/26 entries, approved by the Governor and chaptered by Secretary of State as Chapter 858, Statutes of 2026. 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?
It is enacted but not yet operative. The Governor approved it on 30 September 2026 and it was chaptered as Chapter 858, Statutes of 2026. The text states no effective date; 1 January 2027 follows from the default rule in Article IV, section 8(c)(1) of the California Constitution, which is our inference.
Was the bill presented to the Governor on 31 August 2026?
No. The legislative record shows the bill was presented on 9 September 2026 at 2 p.m., and the Governor approved it on 30 September 2026. This article earlier reported a trade account of presentment on 31 August; this desk has not reopened that trade article, and the record does not show presentment on that date.
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.