California’s New AI Law for Lawyers: What It Requires

SB 574, signed by Governor Newsom on September 30, 2026, is the first state law written specifically for how attorneys and arbitrators use generative AI — not a bar-association guideline, a statute. It requires attorneys to personally verify every citation in AI-assisted filings, restricts what confidential data can go into AI tools, and bars arbitrators from delegating any part of their decision-making to AI. FindLaw and King & Spalding both flag it as a preview of where AI accountability law is headed nationally.

What Does SB 574 Actually Require?

The law adds a new Business and Professions Code section, §6068.1, and amends California Code of Civil Procedure §128.7. Together they require attorneys to personally verify every case citation and statutory reference in a court filing that used generative AI. A filing with an unverified, inaccurate citation can draw sanctions, and the challenged party gets a 21-day window to withdraw or correct the paper before sanctions proceed. The law firm itself is jointly responsible for violations by its lawyers and staff, absent exceptional circumstances — this isn’t a one-lawyer problem, it’s a firm problem. (FindLaw)

What Can’t Attorneys Put Into AI Tools?

SB 574 bars attorneys from entering confidential, personal, or nonpublic information — dates of birth, medical records, financial details, account numbers — into generative AI unless access is restricted to the attorney and others bound to protect it. That’s a meaningful limit on which AI tools are usable for client work at all, not just a disclosure rule. (King & Spalding)

What Does the Law Require Attorneys to Disclose?

Attorneys must disclose generative AI use to the court for documents submitted to it, and must consider disclosure when AI creates content for the public. King & Spalding notes the scope here is genuinely ambiguous — commentators read it as reaching situations where AI contributed to the substance of the work, not incidental use like AI-assisted proofreading. (King & Spalding) What’s clear: attorneys can’t delegate the practice of law to generative AI. It can assist. It can’t replace judgment. (FindLaw)

Does This Apply to Arbitrators Too?

Yes, and the bar is stricter. Arbitrators cannot delegate any part of their decision-making to AI, and must disclose to the parties when they rely on AI-generated information from outside the record. That’s a direct response to concerns about AI quietly shaping arbitral outcomes without anyone in the room knowing. (FindLaw)

Does This Affect Firms Outside California?

Not legally — yet. But both sources frame SB 574 as a first mover, not an outlier. The open questions commentators are flagging — exactly who must verify a citation, how broad “disclosure” really runs, and whether any of this reaches transactional work rather than just litigation — are the same questions every state will eventually have to answer. (King & Spalding) If your firm already has a clean answer to “who checked this citation” and “what did we let the AI see,” you’re ahead of wherever your state lands.

Does SB 574 apply if my firm isn’t in California?

Not directly. It’s California state law, binding on attorneys and arbitrators practicing there. But it’s the first statute of its kind, and the verification and confidentiality standards it sets are a reasonable preview of what other states will eventually codify.

Does the law cover transactional work, or only litigation?

The citation-verification and sanctions provisions are tied to court filings. The confidentiality restriction and the “can’t delegate the practice of law” language are written more broadly, and commentators note it’s unclear how far they reach into non-litigation work. (King & Spalding)

Is this article legal advice?

No. This is informational commentary on a newly enacted statute, not legal advice. Talk to counsel licensed in your jurisdiction about how SB 574 or any comparable rule applies to your practice.

What should a small firm do right now?

Write down, in plain terms, what your firm already does: who checks a citation before it’s filed, what client data is or isn’t allowed into any AI tool, and who signs off on AI-assisted work before it goes out the door. None of that requires new software — it requires a documented habit. Building it now, before a law like California’s reaches your state, is cheap. Rebuilding trust after a sanctioned filing is not.

Your website makes the same kind of claims your filings do — it just doesn’t get checked as often. Run it through SiteScan, GrowthAgents’ free tool: it grades your site across five pages, rewrites your weakest page, and shows you a before-and-after score in about two minutes. No card required.