California’s SB 574 Sets New AI Rules for Attorneys
California has become the first state to regulate attorneys’ use of AI by statute, with Senate Bill 574 taking effect January 1, 2027. The law allows AI to assist legal work, but bars attorneys from delegating the practice of law to it.
- SB 574 takes effect January 1, 2027.
- California is the first state to regulate attorneys’ AI use by statute.
- Lawyers must protect sensitive information and verify AI-generated output.
- AI use must be disclosed on documents submitted to California courts.
- Firms can face sanctions for citation errors by lawyers and staff.
What California’s AI law requires
Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 574 on September 30, 2026, after the bill passed both chambers of the legislature. Senator Tom Umberg introduced it in February 2025. The law applies to every attorney licensed in California, including in-house counsel, while its citation requirements also apply to anyone filing in a California court, regardless of where they are licensed.
Attorneys must protect confidential, personal identifying and other nonpublic information when using AI. Such information can only be entered into a system where access is limited to the attorney and authorized people who must also keep it confidential. The law’s examples of personal identifying information include dates of birth, witness addresses and phone numbers, and medical and financial details.
Lawyers must also take reasonable steps to verify AI-generated material and correct errors or hallucinations before using it. That requirement applies to contract review and other work outside the courtroom. Attorneys must disclose AI use on documents submitted to a court, although disclosure for content shared with the public only has to be considered.
Court filings and arbitration face tighter controls
Every citation in a court filing must be personally verified by an attorney responsible for it, whether it came from AI, a research database or an earlier brief. Courts can sanction attorneys and their firms for citation errors, and firms are generally responsible for violations by their lawyers and staff. Attorneys usually have 21 days to withdraw or correct a challenged filing first.
SB 574 also keeps arbitration decisions under human control. Arbitrators cannot delegate any part of their decision-making to AI. If they plan to rely on AI-generated information from outside the record, they must tell the parties first and, where practical, give them an opportunity to respond.
Some details remain unresolved. The law does not define exactly where assistance becomes delegation, which AI tools require disclosure, what a disclosure must say or how hands-on personal verification must be. An earlier version would have required attorneys to read every cited source personally, but lawmakers removed that provision before passage.
Why legal teams are preparing now
Law firms will need firm-wide processes for citation checks and AI disclosures, particularly on filings with many contributors. The law does not identify which attorney is responsible for citations on large filings, so firms will have to set their own procedures.
In-house teams will encounter the requirements in daily work such as contract review and answering business questions. Although SB 574 covers attorneys, a lawyer who uses work produced by legal operations or contracting staff remains responsible for the AI output. Ironclad advises in-house teams to ask outside counsel how they check citations and handle disclosure, and to include those expectations in outside counsel guidelines.
Other states may take different approaches. New York’s state court system adopted a statewide rule on attorney AI use in June 2026. Florida updated its practice rules so that signing a filing certifies its cited authorities exist and are accurately cited. Illinois allows lawyers to use AI without disclosure if they review the output. Ironclad says citation verification is the rule most likely to spread, while disclosure requirements may remain uneven, creating a patchwork for teams operating across state lines.
