guidance diffAI GovernanceAI in Courts

State Bar of California generative AI guidance: November 2023 version vs 2026 revision

What changed when the State Bar of California replaced its November 2023 generative-AI guidance with the 2026 revision covering agentic AI.

Edited and verified by Cognesio LLP

Researched with AI assistance · sources verified by Cognesio LLP · How this was made ↓

California’s State Bar has replaced its November 2023 generative-AI practical guidance with a 2026 revision centred on agentic AI. The core ethics baseline is unchanged: lawyers remain responsible for competence, confidentiality, supervision, candour, communication and fees. The revision changes the level of detail and makes autonomy the new organising risk.

What changed between the two versions?

The table is drawn from a live text diff between the archived 16 November 2023 PDF and the 2026 PDF. Quotations are from the State Bar documents; section labels follow the headings printed in the PDFs.

SectionNovember 2023 text2026 text
Executive Summary”This Practical Guidance should be read as guiding principles rather than as “best practices.”""This 2026 Practical Guidance replaces the 2023 version and, at the request of the California Supreme Court, addresses the unique challenges presented by the use of agentic AI.”
Executive Summary / definitions”Generative AI is a tool that has wide-ranging application for the practice of law”.”Artificial intelligence refers to computer systems or software that are designed to perform tasks that would ordinarily require human intelligence”.
Agentic AINo equivalent section appeared in the 2023 PDF.”Generative AI products have increasingly incorporated “agentic” capabilities, which can enable systems to autonomously perform tasks or workflows without human prompting.”
Duties of Competence and Diligence”Before using generative AI, a lawyer should understand to a reasonable degree how the technology works”.“capabilities, data sources, limitations, and material risks and benefits before deploying it in connection with legal services.”
Duty of Confidentiality”lacks adequate confidentiality and security protections""deployed as an autonomous agent (including with ongoing data access and autonomy of action).”
Duty to Supervise Lawyers and Nonlawyers”Managerial and supervisory lawyers should establish clear policies regarding the permissible uses of generative AI”.“including more autonomous or agentic AI tools” and tools that perform tasks with limited or no real-time human direction.
Communication Regarding Generative AI Use”The lawyer should consider disclosure to their client that they intend to use generative AI in the representation”.”A lawyer must consider disclosure to their client that they intend to use AI in the representation”.
Charging for Work Produced by Generative AI and Generative AI Costs”A lawyer must not charge hourly fees for the time saved by using generative AI.""Subscription fees for generative AI tools that provide general office functionality, such as drafting assistance, research capabilities, or document review, typically constitute overhead expenses”.
Candor to the Tribunal; and Meritorious Claims and Contentions”A lawyer must review all generative AI outputs, including, but not limited to, analysis and citations to authority for accuracy before submission to the court”.”Lawyers must not permit AI systems to autonomously file documents, communicate with the court, or make representations on the lawyer’s behalf.”
Prohibition on Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation”Some generative AI is trained on biased information”.“multiple agents can compound any underlying bias.”

What did not change?

The 2026 document still treats AI as a professional-responsibility question under existing California duties, not as a separate licence to practise through software. The same categories remain: competence and diligence, confidentiality, compliance with law, supervision, client communication, fees, candour to the tribunal, bias and multijurisdictional practice.

The durable rule is the same one shown in California’s incident record. In Noland v Land of the Free, a California appellate court sanctioned counsel over fabricated quotations and referred the matter to the State Bar. The 2026 guidance does not depend on a new statute to say that a lawyer must verify legal output before using it. It states that professional judgment remains with the lawyer.

The client-data point also remains continuous with the 2023 version. The difference is precision. The older text told lawyers not to input confidential information into tools without adequate protections. The 2026 text asks how the product collects, uses, stores and discloses information; it also names the special risk of agentic systems with access to email, document management systems, client files or calendars. That is the same problem explained more broadly in our client-data explainer.

What is the effective date and transition?

The 2026 PDF prints no issue date and no separate transition clause. Its executive summary says the 2026 Practical Guidance “replaces the 2023 version”. The PDF server response gave Last-Modified: Mon, 18 May 2026 15:53:23 GMT; the State Bar AI resources page linked the 2026 PDF when fetched on 16 September 2026 and returned Last-Modified: Wed, 16 Sep 2026 19:13:47 GMT.

The Board materials supply the process date. Agenda Item 6.3 for the Board of Trustees meeting dated 14 May 2026 requested approval to publish and adopt the updated 2026 guidance, which the staff report said replaces the 2023 version. The same agenda item attaches the Supreme Court of California’s 22 August 2025 letter and describes the work as a direct response to that directive. No separate press release or final minutes confirming the vote was located in this fetch.

Which country-map cells does this touch?

The United States country page records the change in the California subdivision, not as a national rule. The affected cells are bar guidance, fees and billing, confidentiality and client data, and the California note under disclosure in filings, because that cell also records SB 574’s status. The underlying regulation record is State Bar of California Practical Guidance.

The table did not move California’s attorney-filing disclosure cell to binding. As of the 16 September regulation sweep, no statewide California court rule required lawyers to disclose or certify AI use in filings. Rule 10.430 and Standard 10.80 govern court-side generative-AI policies. The State Bar guidance remains guidance for lawyers and firms.

How does it sit with Rule 10.430, Standard 10.80 and SB 574?

California now has three adjacent instruments. Rule of Court 10.430, effective 1 September 2025, requires any court that does not prohibit generative-AI use by court staff or judicial officers to adopt a use policy addressing confidentiality, bias, verification and specified public-facing disclosure; Standard 10.80, also effective 1 September 2025, gives judicial officers guidelines for adjudicative use. Those rules are about court operations.

The State Bar’s 2026 Practical Guidance is the lawyer-facing ethics layer. It describes how existing professional duties apply when lawyers use generative or agentic AI. SB 574 would be the statutory layer if it becomes law: the 7 September SafeLegalAI brief records that it was presented to the Governor on 9 September 2026, would add duties for lawyers using generative AI, and would reach arbitrators. It had not been signed, vetoed or chaptered when the sweep log was written.

Sources