California SB 574

Overview

California SB 574 is a chaptered state statute that establishes rules on the use of generative artificial intelligence in the practice of law and in certain civil-procedure-adjacent roles. The act amends the Business and Professions Code and the Code of Civil Procedure to address attorneys, arbitrators, judicial administration, and alternative dispute resolution certification. It was approved by the Governor and filed with the Secretary of State on 2026-09-30 as Chapter 858, Statutes of 2026, and it takes effect on 2027-01-01. The statute preserves core professional duties rather than displacing them: it expressly states that nothing in the new attorney or arbitrator provisions abrogates the duties of reasonable competence, diligence, or neutrality. In practical terms, SB 574 is a professional-accountability measure. It does not prohibit use of generative AI as a tool, but it draws a legal line against delegation of professional judgment, against entering sensitive information into inadequately protected systems, and against relying on unverified AI-generated citations in court filings.

The law is notable because it combines several compliance channels in one enactment. For attorneys, it imposes confidentiality and verification duties and requires disclosure of generative AI use to the court for documents submitted to the court. For court filings, it creates a separate citation-verification rule in Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.7. For arbitrators, it prohibits delegation of decisionmaking to generative AI and limits reliance on AI-generated information outside the record unless disclosure and an opportunity to comment are provided. For the Judicial Council, it requires a public revisit of Standard 10.80 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration. For alternative dispute resolution certification, it revises complaint-handling and confidentiality rules. The result is a multi-institution framework aimed at preserving professional responsibility while allowing controlled AI assistance.

Definitions

The act defines “generative artificial intelligence” identically in the attorney, citation, and arbitrator provisions. The definition covers an artificial intelligence system that can generate derived synthetic content, including text, images, video, and audio, that emulates the structure and characteristics of the system’s training data. This definition is broad enough to cover common large language models and multimodal tools that produce output resembling learned patterns rather than retrieving fixed records. The statute does not further define “delegate the practice of law,” “reasonable steps,” or “personally verified,” leaving those terms to professional interpretation, bar enforcement, and judicial construction. That choice is important because the act operates through professional standards and sanctions rather than through a rigid technical test.

The attorney confidentiality rule also defines “personal identifying information” broadly. The listed examples include driver’s license numbers, dates of birth, social security numbers, National Crime Information and Criminal Identification and Information numbers, addresses and phone numbers of parties, victims, witnesses, and court personnel, medical or psychiatric information, financial information, account numbers, and any other content sealed by court order or deemed confidential by court rule or statute. In the alternative dispute resolution section, the statute defines “alternative dispute resolution” to include mediation, arbitration, conciliation, or other nonjudicial procedures involving a neutral party in the decisionmaking process. It also defines the “program” as the State Bar certification program created under Section 6173. These definitions matter because they determine the scope of the confidentiality, complaint, and certification duties that follow.

Governance and Institutional Framework

SB 574 distributes implementation across multiple California institutions. The State Bar of California remains central for attorney discipline and alternative dispute resolution certification. The act adds Business and Professions Code Section 6068.1, which imposes direct duties on attorneys using generative AI. It also amends Section 6173 to revise the State Bar’s voluntary certification program for alternative dispute resolution firms, providers, and practitioners. Under the amended certification framework, the State Bar may charge fees to cover administrative costs, may set higher fees in early years to reimburse planning and technology costs, and may not use annual license-fee revenue collected under Sections 6140 or 6141 for this program. The statute also authorizes denial or revocation of certification for failure to meet or maintain certification standards. This makes the State Bar not merely a certifier, but an oversight body with power to investigate, discipline, and manage program integrity.

The Judicial Council is also assigned a direct mandate. Section 180 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires it to publicly revisit and revise, as necessary, Standard 10.80 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration to reflect the further development of generative AI. That requirement is institutional rather than prescriptive: the statute does not itself rewrite the standard, but it compels the Judicial Council to consider whether the current standard remains adequate in light of AI developments. In arbitration, the statute regulates individual arbitrators directly by prohibiting AI delegation and by requiring disclosure before reliance on outside-the-record AI-generated information. In the alternative dispute resolution certification complaint process, the statute contemplates either the State Bar itself or a professional organization approved by the State Bar, but it excludes a voluntary association of attorneys from serving that role. Collectively, these provisions create a layered governance model in which conduct rules, certification, judicial administration, and confidential complaint resolution are handled by different bodies with distinct responsibilities.

Key Focus Areas

The law’s first key focus is attorney competence and confidentiality in AI-assisted practice. Attorneys may use generative AI to assist legal work, but they may not delegate the practice of law to it. They must avoid entering confidential, personally identifying, or other nonpublic information into systems unless access to that information is restricted to the attorney and authorized persons under confidentiality obligations. They must also take reasonable steps to verify AI outputs, including case and statutory citations, and correct erroneous or hallucinated output in any material they use. In addition, they must disclose AI use to the court for all documents submitted to the court and consider whether to disclose AI use when content is created for public distribution. This section reflects a core policy choice: AI may assist, but it cannot replace professional judgment or accountability.

The second key focus is litigation integrity. SB 574 amends Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.7 to prohibit briefs, pleadings, motions, and other filed papers from containing citations that the submitting attorney has not personally verified, expressly including citations supplied by generative AI. This rule pushes beyond simple anti-hallucination controls and establishes a personal-verification standard for every citation in court papers. The third key focus is arbitration and alternative dispute resolution. Arbitrators may not delegate any part of their decisionmaking process to generative AI and may not rely on AI-generated information outside the record without prior disclosure to the parties and, as far as practical, an opportunity for comment. For certified alternative dispute resolution providers, the statute strengthens ethical-standards verification and complaint handling, while protecting privileged and confidential material in a private proceeding. Across all of these areas, the law is aimed at accountability, evidentiary reliability, and the protection of client and party confidentiality.

Implementation Framework

Implementation is largely profession-driven rather than rulemaking-heavy. For attorneys, compliance requires firms and solo practitioners to build internal AI-use protocols that distinguish between permissible assistance and impermissible delegation. The statute’s confidentiality clause means that AI procurement, prompt policies, data-security settings, and vendor terms become part of legal compliance. Attorneys must also develop a workflow for verifying citations, checking legal authorities, and correcting hallucinations before any material is used. Because disclosure to the court is required for all documents submitted to the court, firms should also create a consistent disclosure practice that is understandable, document-specific, and defensible. The law does not prescribe a form of disclosure or a template verification process, so professional judgment will determine the exact workflow, but the obligation itself is statutory and immediate once the law becomes operative.

For the State Bar certification program, implementation requires revised procedures for certification, complaints, confidentiality, and tiering. Certified firms, providers, or practitioners must verify that their arbitrators comply with the Judicial Council’s ethics standards and that mediators comply with rules equivalent to the California Rules of Court provisions governing court-connected mediation. The State Bar or an approved professional organization must receive, investigate, and resolve complaints, and the proceedings must occur in private and remain confidential. The statute also allows the State Bar to publicly disclose nonconfidential information after a decision, including the name of a certified provider found to have violated ethical standards, the remedial action taken, and the general basis for the action. In short, implementation combines front-end certification, midstream confidentiality safeguards, and back-end public accountability. The act also contemplates fees sufficient to administer the program, including higher start-up fees in early years to cover planning, technology, and preliminary staffing costs.

Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring under SB 574 occurs through several different channels. Attorneys are monitored through the State Bar’s existing disciplinary architecture, through court enforcement of filing and sanction rules, and through the practical obligation to disclose and verify AI use. The statute does not create a separate AI regulator for lawyers; instead, it embeds AI obligations into existing professional-duty structures. For filings in court, the Section 128.7 sanction framework allows a court, after notice and an opportunity to respond, to impose nonmonetary directives, penalties, or fee shifting where appropriate. That mechanism functions as an ex post compliance check, particularly for false citations or paper filings that were not personally verified. Because the law also requires attorneys to correct erroneous or hallucinated output in material they use, post-use review becomes part of ongoing monitoring.

For alternative dispute resolution certification, monitoring is built into complaint procedures and tiered certification. The State Bar may deny or revoke certification if standards are not met or maintained, and the statute permits higher certification tiers for providers demonstrating greater accountability and consumer protection, without making those tiers a quality rating. Confidential complaint proceedings allow the State Bar to investigate ethical failures while protecting privileged material. For arbitrators, monitoring is more case-specific: disclosures about outside-the-record AI use create a record that can be reviewed by the parties and, if necessary, by a supervising court or professional body. The Judicial Council’s obligation to publicly revisit Standard 10.80 also implies an evaluation cycle: the existing standard must be reexamined against real-world AI developments and updated if needed. The overall structure favors continuing review rather than one-time compliance certification.

Penalties, Liability, and Appeals

SB 574 does not create a standalone AI-specific fine schedule, but it is not toothless. For attorneys, violations of the citation-verification rule fall within Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.7, which authorizes sanctions after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond. The statute limits sanctions to what is sufficient to deter repetition or comparable conduct and allows nonmonetary directives, penalties payable into court, and, in some circumstances, payment of the opposing party’s reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses. The law also provides that law firms are jointly responsible for violations committed by their partners, associates, and employees, absent exceptional circumstances. For professional conduct issues more broadly, attorneys remain subject to the State Bar’s disciplinary framework. The act itself, however, does not create a new appeal procedure for attorney discipline or court sanctions; any review would proceed under the ordinary rules governing sanctions or bar proceedings.

For alternative dispute resolution certification, the State Bar may deny or revoke certification for failure to meet or maintain the standards set by the program. The statute does not spell out a bespoke appeal system, so disputes over certification status would likely be handled under the State Bar’s governing procedures and applicable administrative law principles. The confidentiality rules are also important to liability and redress. The statute states that furnishing information for a complaint does not waive or extinguish privilege, work-product protection, or confidentiality duties, and that complaint materials are exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act. This means the complaint process is designed to encourage reporting without exposing privileged information. The law therefore relies on professional sanctions, certification consequences, and confidentiality protections rather than criminal penalties or broad private rights of action.

Relationship to Other Instruments

SB 574 amends existing California professional and civil-procedure provisions rather than creating an entirely separate code. It modifies Business and Professions Code Section 6173, which already created a voluntary certification program for alternative dispute resolution firms, providers, or practitioners. It also adds new Section 6068.1 to the Business and Professions Code, tying generative AI obligations to an attorney’s existing duties of competence and diligence. In civil procedure, it amends Section 128.7, which already addresses certification of pleadings and sanctions, and it adds Section 180 to require judicial review of Standard 10.80. The arbitration provision adds Section 1282.1 to the Code of Civil Procedure, thereby situating AI rules within the California Arbitration Act. The act also explicitly preserves lawyer-client privilege, work-product doctrine, and confidentiality protections unless an exception in the complaint process applies and consent requirements are met.

The statute also interacts with the California Constitution’s access-to-records principles by including legislative findings under Article I, Section 3. Those findings justify exempting certain complaint records and communications from disclosure because of the need to protect privileged records and communications submitted in the course of an investigation. At the same time, the act authorizes limited public disclosure after resolution of a complaint, so the relationship to public-access law is calibrated rather than absolute. The law does not displace the California Rules of Court or federal law; instead, it builds around them and refers to existing ethics standards, mediation rules, privilege doctrines, and sanctions provisions. That makes SB 574 an integrating statute: it uses existing legal architecture as the enforcement substrate for new AI-specific norms.

National/Federal Alignment

At the federal level, SB 574 aligns with a broader regulatory trend that emphasizes human accountability, accuracy, confidentiality, and transparency in AI use, but it is primarily a state professional-conduct statute. The law does not rely on federal AI legislation or federal administrative regulation for its operative rules. Instead, it uses state licensing, state court procedure, and state arbitration law to regulate conduct inside California’s legal system. This means its main compliance burden falls on lawyers and ADR professionals practicing in California, regardless of whether their AI systems are hosted elsewhere or built on non-California infrastructure. The statute is therefore localized in enforcement but broad in effect, because it reaches the day-to-day work of litigators, arbitrators, and certified providers.

Compared with federal frameworks that often focus on agency procurement, sectoral risk management, or general AI governance principles, SB 574 is narrower and more operational. It does not establish a federal preemption issue or attempt to regulate general-purpose AI developers directly. It instead regulates the professional use of AI outputs in legal practice, which fits comfortably within state authority over attorney conduct and court procedures. The court-filing citation rule is especially state-specific because it piggybacks on California sanctions law. Likewise, the arbitration rule targets California arbitration practice and the State Bar certification program. In effect, the statute complements, rather than duplicates, any federal baseline by insisting that regardless of model capability or vendor promises, a California lawyer or arbitrator must still verify, disclose, and remain responsible for the work product.

Implementation Timeline

Compliance Checklist

Sources and References