CA SB 574: Attorneys, arbitrators, judicial officers, and alternative dispute resolution providers

Operative sections

• B&P Code §6068.1(a)(2): an attorney shall not delegate the practice of law to generative artificial intelligence.
• B&P Code §6068.1(a)(3)(A): no confidential, personal identifying or other nonpublic information may be entered into a generative AI system unless access to it is restricted to the attorney and authorised persons bound to confidentiality.
• B&P Code §6068.1(a)(3)(B): reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of generative AI outputs, including all case and statutory citations, and to correct erroneous or hallucinated output in any material used.
• B&P Code §6068.1(a)(3)(C): disclose generative AI use to the court for all documents submitted; CCP §128.7 amended so no filed paper may contain citations the responsible attorney has not personally verified; CCP §§180 and 1282.1 added — arbitrators may not delegate decision-making to generative AI or rely on AI-generated information outside the record without prior disclosure.
• The bill directs the Judicial Council to revisit its standard of judicial administration on generative AI.

Text

SECTION 1. Section 6068.1 is added to the Business and Professions Code, to read: 6068.1. (a) (1) Nothing in this section shall be construed to abrogate an attorney's duty to exercise reasonable competence and diligence in the practice of law. (2) An attorney shall not delegate the practice of law to generative artificial intelligence. (3) An attorney who uses generative artificial intelligence to assist in the practice of law shall do all of the following: (A) Not enter confidential, personal identifying, and other nonpublic information into a generative artificial intelligence system for which access to confidential, personal identifying, or other nonpublic information the attorney inputs into the system is not restricted to the attorney and persons authorized by the attorney under obligations to protect the confidentiality of the information. (B) Take reasonable steps to do both of the following: (i) Verify the accuracy of generative artificial intelligence outputs, including, but not limited to, the accuracy of all case and statutory citations. (ii) Correct any erroneous or hallucinated output in any material used by the attorney. (C) Disclose the use of generative artificial intelligence to the court for all documents submitted to the court and consider whether to disclose the use of generative artificial intelligence if it is used to create content provided to the public.

Verbatim operative text; legislative text is a government edict and public domain. Full text · History

What already applies in California

The bill sits alongside rules courts and regulators have already issued, and decisions courts have already handed down, in the same jurisdiction — from the regulation tracker and the court-decisions corpus.

Rules and guidance in force

• California Rule of Court 10.430 and Standard 10.80: Generative AI use by courtsJudicial Council of California · 2025-09-01

  Rule 10.430 of the California Rules of Court, effective 1 September 2025, requires every California court that permits generative AI use by judicial officers or staff to adopt a use policy by 15 December 2025. Policies must address confidentiality, bias, human review of output, and disclosure when public-facing content is fully AI-generated. Standard 10.80 offers a model policy.

• Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of LawState Bar of California · 2023-11-16

  Practical guidance approved by the State Bar of California on 16 November 2023, the first state bar guidance on generative AI in the United States. California lawyers must not enter confidential client information into tools without adequate protections, must review and verify all output, should consider disclosing AI use to clients, and may not bill for time not spent.

• Proposed amendments to Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.4, 1.6, 3.3, 5.1 and 5.3 related to artificial intelligenceState Bar of California

  Proposed amendments to the California Rules of Professional Conduct that would write AI duties directly into the rules: verification of cited authorities, firm-level AI governance policies under Rule 5.1, and instruction of nonlawyer assistants under Rule 5.3. Public comment closed 4 May 2026 and the Board of Trustees considered them in mid May 2026. Adoption requires the California Supreme Court.

Decisions on the record

• Perez v. SchaalSuperior Court of California, County of Sacramento · 2026-08-21

  The Sacramento Superior Court rules on a demurrer and addresses Joseph Perez’s unsupported quotation from Adorh Farms. The court says the quotation does not appear in that opinion or any reported case, flags possible generative AI use, declines sanctions, and warns future fabricated authority may be sanctioned.

• Lohbeck v. Amazon.com Services, LLCUnited States District Court for the Eastern District of California · 2026-08-21

  The Eastern District of California recommends dismissal of Stephen Lohbeck’s claims and considers Amazon’s Rule 11 argument. The magistrate judge finds two quotations in Lohbeck’s sanctions motion do not appear in the cited cases, declines sanctions because he is self-represented, and warns that future false authority may be sanctionable.

• Full Standard Properties, LLC v. SJ 6070, LLCUnited States District Court for the Northern District of California · 2026-08-20

  The Northern District of California grants in part a renewed fee motion and discharges a sanctions order. The order records that plaintiff’s counsel reimbursed SJ 6070 $14,500 for expenses incurred addressing nonexistent cases cited in opposition to an earlier attorneys’ fees motion.

• Kasengela v. Kaiser Foundation HospitalsUnited States District Court for the Central District of California · 2026-08-20

  The Central District of California grants Cecile Kasengela’s remand motion while addressing non-existent quotations in her self-represented briefing. The court reiterates its standing order on AI-generated hallucinated caselaw, rejects her accusation against Kaiser, and says a lawyer would face significant sanctions.

• Dotson v. Bob Evans Farms, LLCUnited States District Court for the Central District of California · 2026-08-20

  The Central District of California denies Michael Dotson’s reconsideration application and identifies three quotations misattributed to Mission Power. The court says the language appears in Horne instead, describes the errors as AI-hallucination hallmarks, and orders counsel to show cause about sanctions and bar referral.