California Turned the AI Ethics Opinion Into a Statute

On September 30, 2026, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 574, and from January 1, 2027 three duties that firms have treated as ethics guidance become California law. None of them can be satisfied by a policy document alone.

Three guidance lines became three statutory duties

Ropes & Gray reports that California is the first state to regulate attorneys’ use of generative AI by statute. As Holland & Knight’s alert on the enactment lays out, it adds Section 6068.1 to the Business and Professions Code and amends Section 128.7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Three duties matter for firm operations.

First, confidentiality. An attorney may not enter confidential, personally identifying or other nonpublic information into a generative AI system unless access is “restricted to the attorney and persons authorized by the attorney.” Ropes & Gray notes the statute defines personal information broadly, including Social Security numbers, dates of birth, medical information and sealed content. Baker McKenzie notes the restriction applies even when the information is publicly available, such as a witness’s address or phone number.

Second, verification. Attorneys must take “reasonable steps” to verify output, including the accuracy of all case and statutory citations, and must correct “erroneous or hallucinated output.” Ropes & Gray reads that duty as covering all legal work, not only litigation. Section 128.7 goes further: a filing in any California court may not contain a citation the responsible attorney “has not personally verified,” whatever its source, per Holland & Knight.

Third, disclosure. An attorney who uses generative AI must disclose that use to the court “for all documents submitted to the court.” The statute also bars an attorney from delegating the practice of law to generative AI.

The enforcement terms are specific. Ropes & Gray reports that sanctions run through Section 128.7, with its 21-day window to withdraw or correct a challenged filing, and that, absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm is jointly responsible for violations by its partners, associates and employees. The Business and Professions Code duties are enforced through State Bar discipline; the statute sets no separate penalty.

The statute leaves the hard questions to the firm, and the firm has to answer them first

SB 574 defines neither “delegation” nor “personally verified,” and it does not say which lawyer is responsible for a filing when several sign it, according to Ropes & Gray. King & Spalding flags the disclosure duty as the widest gap: a literal reading would require disclosure in every filing by any attorney who used AI at all, while the more likely intent is disclosure when AI contributed to a specific document’s content, research or analysis. King & Spalding treats minor uses such as proofreading as incidental, though neither the courts nor the State Bar have said so. King & Spalding adds that running a second AI tool over the citations is unlikely to satisfy the verification duty. Ropes & Gray cautions that individual judges’ rules may demand more than the statute does.

A statute does not ask whether your policy was reasonable. It asks whether the citation was verified and the data stayed in bounds.

That is the shift. An ethics opinion invites an argument about reasonableness. This statute asks about a specific input, a specific citation and a specific filing, and until regulators or courts define the terms, the firm’s written interpretation is its defense. Holland & Knight suggests document-specific disclosure whenever AI helped prepare a filing as the more prudent course.

Each duty lands on a workflow, and each workflow needs an owner

Baker McKenzie is direct that an enterprise AI subscription alone does not establish compliance: the question is who can access the information submitted and what confidentiality obligations bind them. Its recommended steps translate into three working controls, each with its own owner.

1. A tool tier. List every generative AI system the firm touches, from the enterprise platform to the AI layer inside a research service to the consumer app on a partner’s phone. Record whether access is restricted to the attorney and confidentiality-bound people the attorney has authorized. Tools with a documented yes may receive client information; everything else is limited to public material. Technology and risk own this register.
2. A named verifier on every filing. Baker McKenzie recommends identifying, before filing, the attorney responsible for citation verification. Make the check leave a record: the authority exists, is cited correctly, remains good law and supports the proposition. Because the firm is jointly responsible, this step is a gate, not a reminder.
3. A usage log tied to each filing. A firm cannot disclose AI use it did not track, so record which tool touched which filing. Baker McKenzie adds that disclosures should avoid revealing privileged communications or litigation strategy.

Baker McKenzie also recommends clear instructions to outside investigators on protected witness information, because retaining them does not shift the attorney’s obligations.

The statute reaches in-house counsel, out-of-state lawyers and the clients who hire them

The duties bind every California-licensed attorney, and Baker McKenzie confirms that includes in-house counsel. Ropes & Gray notes the statute does not expressly address lawyers admitted pro hac vice for a California matter but argues the Section 6068.1 duties reach them, and that the citation rule applies to any filing in a California court regardless of licensure.

The reach extends through clients as well. King & Spalding recommends that clients require outside counsel to comply and review outside counsel guidelines so they do not discourage the checks, and Baker McKenzie tells corporate legal departments to coordinate with outside counsel on verification, tool selection and disclosure.

The ethics guidance told lawyers what reasonable care looked like; SB 574 tells them what a violation looks like: a specific input, a specific citation or a specific filing. Build the tool tier, name the verifier and log the use before January 1.