Senator Umberg introduced SB 574 on February 20, 2025; the bill was amended twice in the Senate and four times in the Assembly before clearing both chambers on the final day of the 2025–2026 session. The version sent to the Governor amends two existing sections and adds three new sections across the Business and Professions Code and the Code of Civil Procedure, summarized below:
- Restrictions on use of GAI – New Business and Professions Code § 6068.1(a) would provide that attorneys must not “delegate the practice of law to generative artificial intelligence,” and must (i) not enter confidential or personal identifying information into GAI systems for which access is not limited to the attorney or persons authorized by the attorney who are subject to confidentiality obligations; (ii) take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of GAI outputs and correct erroneous outputs before using them; and (iii) disclose the use of GAI to the court for all documents submitted to the court. The section also notes that nothing in the section is to be construed as abrogating an attorney’s duty of reasonable competence and diligence.
- Personal verification of citations in court filings – Amended Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7 would add a new paragraph (b)(2) providing that a brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court shall not contain any citations that the attorney responsible for submitting the filing has not personally verified, including any citation provided by generative artificial intelligence. A court that finds a violation of the new citation-verification requirement may impose sanctions on the attorneys, law firms, or parties responsible, limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated, but may not impose them against a represented party. A sanctions motion may not be filed unless the challenged paper is not withdrawn or corrected within 21 days of service of the motion.
- Restrictions on arbitrator use of GAI – New Code of Civil Procedure § 1282.1 would bar an arbitrator from delegating any part of their decision-making process to any GAI tool and from relying on GAI-generated information outside the record without first disclosing its use to the parties and, as far as practical, giving them an opportunity to comment. A savings clause preserves the arbitrator’s existing duties of neutrality, competence, and diligence.
- Judicial Council review of GAI standards – New Code of Civil Procedure § 180 would direct the Judicial Council to publicly revisit, and revise as necessary, Standard 10.80 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration to incorporate any necessary changes reflecting the further development of GAI. The section is a single directive and does not prescribe the substance of any revision or set a deadline for the Judicial Council to act.
- ADR certification and complaint procedures – Amended Business and Professions Code § 6173 would recast the State Bar’s voluntary ADR certification program by replacing the current requirement that certified firms maintain internal complaint procedures with a framework under which the State Bar or a State Bar–approved professional organization would receive, investigate, and resolve complaints of noncompliance with applicable ethical standards. Certified entities and State Bar licensees would be required to produce relevant records and communications, subject to lawyer-client privilege and work product protections. Complaint proceedings would be private, confidential, and exempt from the California Public Records Act, though the State Bar could publicly disclose non-privileged information after a decision, including the identity of a firm, provider, or practitioner found to have violated a standard and any remedial action taken.
What the Prohibition on Delegation to GAI Would Mean in Practice
To date, the legal profession has generally regulated GAI through the lawyer’s existing ethical duties, such as those regarding competence, confidentiality, communication, candor, supervision, and reasonable fees, rather than through categorical bans. The ABA’s Formal Opinion 512 (July 29, 2024) and the state bar opinions issued in New York, Florida, and Texas all take that approach, insisting that attorneys understand the technology, verify its outputs, protect client information, and remain accountable for the work product.1 The State Bar in California has gone the furthest in scope and, at the request of the California Supreme Court, published the Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct’s 2026 Practical Guidance that not only addresses GAI systems but also addresses autonomous GAI systems that pursue goals, plan, select tools, and execute multistep tasks such as revising pleadings, preparing discovery responses, coordinating document review, and facilitating client intake.2 Even there, the guidance was supervision rather than a prohibition on uses of GAI.
By contrast, new Business and Professions Code § 6068.1(a) would take a different form as it would impose a statutory restriction on the delegation of legal practice to GAI. The restriction, however, hinges on two terms that are undefined, “delegate” and “the practice of law.” California courts have contemplated the meaning of “the practice of law” for roughly a century. In People v. Merchants Protective Corp. (1922), a corporation was accused of practicing law in California, and the court quoted, with approval, a formulation from an earlier Indiana decision (Eley v. Miller, 7 Ind. App. 529 (1893)) describing the concept in its broader sense as including legal advice and counsel and the preparation of legal instruments and contracts that secure legal rights, whether or not a matter is pending in court. The breadth of that standard is evident in In re Reynoso, 477 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2007), where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that, under California law, the non-attorney seller of a web-based bankruptcy program that claimed to relieve users of the need to choose schedules or work through complex bankruptcy rules engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. The court reasoned that several features of the program (including its automated, customized suggestions for completing court filings) combined with the seller’s holding itself out as offering legal expertise, amounted to personalized legal counsel rather than merely clerical assistance.
Today, the technology that definition must account for is far more capable than the bankruptcy software at issue in Reynoso. Legal practice is now augmented by AI, including agentic systems that might plan and execute multistep tasks autonomously, such as running first-pass review across thousands of contracts in connection with merger and acquisition due diligence, populating diligence issue lists, and parsing discovery populations that once consumed hundreds of attorney hours. Those are precisely the high-volume, judgment-adjacent tasks that a flat prohibition on “delegating the practice of law” may be potentially read to reach, even though attorneys already rely on staff, contract reviewers, and technology to perform similar work under supervision. Whether using an AI tool for such tasks constitutes “delegation” rather than supervised assistance is a question the bill does not answer. The legislation was targeting litigation-focused attorneys who were not reviewing GAI outputs before submitting them to courts and arbitration tribunals. Practically speaking, it does not appear that the legislature intended to ban transactional attorneys from using GAI to support their practices, but the statutory language could be more specifically drafted to avoid any ambiguity.
Conclusion
Governor Newsom has until September 30, 2026, to sign or veto SB 574. If he signs the bill, California attorneys will need to navigate a statutory prohibition whose practical scope depends on how “delegate” and “the practice of law” are interpreted. We will continue to monitor and provide updates on any future developments.
Footnotes
1. See American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Opinion 512 (July 29, 2024); The New York State Bar, Formal Opinion 2024-5 (August 2024); The Florida Bar, Ethics Opinion 24-1 (January 19, 2024); and The Professional Ethics Committee for the State Bar of Texas, Ethics Opinion No. 705 (February 2025).
2. The State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct, Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law (2026).
