---
title: "California: AI rules for lawyers"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/california"
type: "jurisdiction"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "US-CA"
kind: "state"
country: "US"
parent: "United States"
last_checked: "2026-10-31"
as_of: "2026-10-31"
last_reviewed: "2026-11-03"
---
# California: AI rules for lawyers
> California: court and regulator AI instruments and the tasks that change here.
Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/california
Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt
## What this means for lawyers
The State Bar's 2026 Practical Guidance (approved 14 May 2026, replacing the 2023 version) applies the existing Rules of Professional Conduct to generative and agentic AI. It is guidance, not a rule: lawyers must understand the tool, verify and correct outputs, keep professional judgment, and not delegate candor to the court to AI.
Do not put client confidential information into a generative AI tool that presents material confidentiality or security risks unless the client gives informed consent. Reasonable efforts mean more than relying on marketing assurances, and may include reading terms of use, privacy policies and vendor documentation.
Filing with the court: the Court of Appeal sanctioned counsel $10,000 for briefs with AI-fabricated quotations and citations, and directed the clerk to serve the opinion on the State Bar (Noland, filed 12 Sep 2025, certified for publication).
The State Bar has proposed, but not adopted, comment amendments to Rules 1.1, 1.4, 1.6, 3.3, 5.1 and 5.3 on AI. Its 2026 comment list shows a first round closing 4 May 2026 and a second entry closing 6 Aug 2026. No Supreme Court approval was found.
As at 31 October 2026.
## Telling the court and the client
**Tell the court:** Unclear
Client disclosure/consent: depends. The Guidance says a lawyer must consider disclosing to the client the intention to use AI, how it will be used and the benefits and risks. Informed consent is needed before inputting confidential information into a tool presenting material confidentiality or security risks. Proposed Rule 1.4 Comment [5] (not adopted) would address this.
- [Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law (2026 version)](https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/ethics/Generative-AI-Practical-Guidance.pdf)
- [Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct Related to Artificial Intelligence](https://www.calbar.ca.gov/public/public-meetings-comment/public-comment/public-comment-archives/2026-public-comment/proposed-amendments-rules-professional-conduct-related-artificial-intelligence)
**Tell the client:** Varies
Same basis and sources as above.
## Last checked
Last checked 31 October 2026.
## What changed in California in the last 12 months
- 1 January 2027 · Starts: [California Business and Professions Code section 6068.1 – Attorneys' use of generative artificial intelligence (SB 574, Stats. 2026, ch. 858)](#ai-rule-us-ca-bpc-6068-1-gen-ai)
- 1 January 2027 · Starts: [California Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7(b)(2) – Personal verification of citations in court filings (SB 574, Stats. 2026, ch. 858)](#ai-rule-us-ca-ccp-128-7-b2-citation-verification)
- 6 August 2026 · Dated: [Appellate Division Administrative Order No. 26/01: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence](#ai-rule-jr-us-ca-orange-appellate-admin-order-26-01)
- 14 May 2026 · Dated: [Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law (2026 version)](#ai-rule-jr-us-ca-calbar-practical-guidance-2026)
## AI instruments
### Courts and tribunals
#### Appellate Division Administrative Order No. 26/01: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence
- Type: Court rule or order · Administrative order
- Issuer: Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Appellate Division
- Date on page: 6th day of August, 2026
- Effective date: 6 August 2026
- Status: 6 August 2026; start date not confirmed
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://www.occourts.org/system/files/local-rules/appellate-division-administrative-order-no-2601-use-generative-artificial-intelligence.pdf
Signed by the Appellate Division Presiding Judge and applies to counsel and self-represented parties in the Orange County Superior Court Appellate Division. AI use is not prohibited, but the filer must personally confirm accuracy, and the court will impute AI errors to the signer. It does not require disclosure of AI use.
Key points:
- Signing or being listed on a filing containing AI-generated content, including citations, certifies personal verification of its accuracy.
- Errors by AI tools are imputed to the signer and any other attorney or self-represented party listed on the filing.
- Failure to verify the accuracy of submissions, particularly citations to law and evidence, may be grounds for sanctions or disciplinary action before the State Bar.
- Counsel must comply with protective orders and ethical/legal obligations when using AI tools.
#### Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P., B331918 (published opinion on AI-fabricated citations)
- Type: Judgment
- Issuer: Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Three
- Date on page: Filed 9/12/25
- Effective date: 12 September 2025
- Status: 12 September 2025; start date not confirmed
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/B331918.PDF
Published opinion sanctioning appellant's counsel $10,000, payable to the clerk of the court, for appellate briefs containing fabricated quotations and citations generated by AI tools that counsel did not read. Counsel was directed to serve the opinion on his client, and the clerk to serve it on the State Bar.
Key points:
- Fabricated AI-generated authority made the appeal frivolous and violated the Rules of Court; it is sanctionable.
- The court said no filing should contain any citation, from AI or any other source, that the responsible attorney has not personally read and verified.
- The court declined sanctions payable to opposing counsel because respondents had not alerted the court to the fabricated citations.
- The clerk was directed to serve the opinion on the State Bar.
#### California Rules of Court, rule 10.430: Generative artificial intelligence use policies
- Type: Court rule or order · Court rule
- Issuer: Judicial Council of California
- Date on page: Page headed California Rules of Court 2026; adopted effective September 1, 2025
- Effective date: 1 September 2025
- Status: 1 September 2025; start date not confirmed
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/ten/rule10_430
Requires superior courts, Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court that do not prohibit generative AI use by court staff or judicial officers to adopt a use policy by 15 December 2025. It governs court staff and judicial officers outside their adjudicative role, not lawyers' filings.
Key points:
- Policies must prohibit entering confidential, personal identifying or nonpublic information into a public generative AI system.
- Policies must require reasonable steps to verify accuracy, correct hallucinated output and remove biased or harmful content.
- Policies must require disclosure where a final public work consists entirely of generative AI output.
- Courts may prohibit AI use or be more restrictive than the rule.
#### California Standards of Judicial Administration, standard 10.80: Use of generative artificial intelligence by judicial officers
- Type: Guidance for judges · Judicial guideline
- Issuer: Judicial Council of California
- Date on page: Page headed California Rules of Court 2026; adopted effective September 1, 2025
- Effective date: 1 September 2025
- Status: 1 September 2025; start date not confirmed
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/standards/Standard10_80
Sets 'should' standards for judicial officers using generative AI for tasks within their adjudicative role. It is relevant to lawyers only as a guide to what judges are expected to do; it does not regulate lawyers.
Key points:
- Judicial officers should not enter confidential or personal identifying information into a public generative AI system.
- They should take reasonable steps to verify AI material, including material prepared on their behalf, and correct hallucinated output.
- They should consider whether to disclose AI use where content is provided to the public.
#### Court Policy on the Use of Generative AI for Court Filings and Documents
- Type: Court policy
- Issuer: Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo
- Date on page: Not stated
- Effective date: Not stated
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://sanmateo.courts.ca.gov/system/files/news/court-policy-use-generative-ai-court-filings-and-documents.pdf
Applies to attorneys, self-represented parties and entities filing in the San Mateo County Superior Court. Filings prepared with generative AI must be thoroughly reviewed and verified by the submitting party, and the court advises against entering confidential information into AI tools. The policy does not require disclosure of AI use.
Key points:
- Filings prepared with AI must be reviewed and verified before submission; case citations should be independently verified by the submitting party.
- Submissions must be reviewed and signed by the attorney of record or self-represented litigant.
- Failure to verify case and statute citations may result in sanctions, including professional discipline (citing Code Civ. Proc. 128.7, rules 3.1 and 3.3, and Bus. & Prof. Code 6086.7).
- The court advises against entering confidential, privileged or sensitive information into AI tools and does not guarantee data security.
### State bar and regulators
#### Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law (2026 version)
- Type: Law society or bar guidance · Bar guidance
- Issuer: State Bar of California (Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct)
- Date on page: 14 May 2026 (State Bar resource page); the document itself says this 2026 Practical Guidance replaces the 2023 version
- Effective date: 14 May 2026
- Status: 14 May 2026; start date not confirmed
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/ethics/Generative-AI-Practical-Guidance.pdf
Guidance for all California licensees on applying the Rules of Professional Conduct and the State Bar Act to generative and agentic AI. It is not a new rule. It covers competence, confidentiality, supervision, client communication, fees, candor to the tribunal and bias, and was updated at the California Supreme Court's request to address agentic AI.
Key points:
- Lawyers must understand a tool's capabilities, data sources and limits, and independently review, verify and correct outputs; professional judgment cannot be delegated to AI.
- A lawyer must not input client confidential information into a tool presenting material confidentiality or security risks without informed client consent.
- A lawyer must consider disclosing to the client an intention to use AI, and should check for court rules or orders requiring disclosure of AI use.
- Lawyers must not let agentic AI file documents, communicate with the court or make representations without lawyer review and approval.
- Hourly billing must reflect time actually spent; general AI subscriptions are overhead, and matter-specific AI costs may be charged only if clearly disclosed, at cost, without markup absent informed written consent.
#### Ethics & Technology Resources: technology competence (Rule 1.1 Comment [1]) and technology MCLE
- Type: Regulator guidance
- Issuer: State Bar of California
- Date on page: Rule 1.1 Comment [1] 'operative March 22, 2021'; page footer copyright 2026
- Effective date: 22 March 2021
- Status: 22 March 2021; start date not confirmed
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://www.calbar.ca.gov/legal-professionals/ethics-compliance-practice-resources/ethics/ethics-technology-resources
State Bar resource page stating that Rule 1.1 Comment [1] extends competence to keeping abreast of technology in practice, and that California attorneys must complete at least one MCLE hour on technology in the practice of law each compliance period. It hosts a one-hour MCLE toolkit on generative AI.
Key points:
- Rule 1.1 Comment [1] technology competence has been operative since 22 March 2021.
- At least one MCLE credit hour on technology in the practice of law is required each compliance period.
- The State Bar strongly encourages AI-focused education and offers a generative AI MCLE toolkit.
#### Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct Related to Artificial Intelligence (rules 1.1, 1.4, 1.6, 3.3, 5.1, 5.3)
- Type: Consultation, not in force · Consultation
- Issuer: State Bar of California (Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct)
- Date on page: Not stated
- Effective date: Not stated
- Status: Consultation, not in force
- Last checked 31 October 2026
- URL: https://www.calbar.ca.gov/public/public-meetings-comment/public-comment/public-comment-archives/2026-public-comment/proposed-amendments-rules-professional-conduct-related-artificial-intelligence
Proposed changes to the comments of six Rules of Professional Conduct, prompted by a 22 August 2025 letter from the California Supreme Court asking the State Bar to consider putting principles from its AI guidance into the rules and to address agentic AI. The first comment period closed 4 May 2026, and the State Bar's 2026 Public Comment list shows a second entry for the item with a 6 August 2026 deadline. No Supreme Court adoption was found, so the amendments are not in force.
Key points:
- Rule 1.1: AI added as relevant technology; new comment requires independent review, verification and professional judgment over outputs.
- Rule 1.4: new Comment [5] on communicating AI use that presents significant risk or materially affects scope, cost, manner or decision-making.
- Rule 1.6: new comment treats exposing confidential information to AI tools with material risk as 'reveal'.
- Rule 3.3: new comment on verifying that cited authorities exist and are not misstated, including AI-generated citations.
- Rules 5.1 and 5.3: comments on firm AI policies and on supervising nonlawyer assistants' use of AI.
### Legislation
#### California Business and Professions Code section 6068.1 – Attorneys' use of generative artificial intelligence (SB 574, Stats. 2026, ch. 858)
- Type: Legislation
- Issuer: California Legislature
- Date on page: 30 September 2026
- Effective date: 1 January 2027
- Status: Starts 1 January 2027 (not yet in force)
- Last checked 11 October 2026
- URL: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB574
- Recorded under United States; shown here because the issuer is in California.
Section 6068.1 was added to the Business and Professions Code by SB 574 (Stats. 2026, ch. 858). The Governor approved it on 30 September 2026, and it applies from 1 January 2027. It applies to California attorneys (lawyers) under the State Bar Act. An attorney shall not delegate the practice of law to generative artificial intelligence. An attorney who uses generative AI to assist in the practice of law must keep confidential, personal identifying and other nonpublic information out of systems where access is not restricted to the attorney and persons authorised by the attorney who are bound to protect it. The attorney must take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of outputs, including all case and statutory citations, and to correct erroneous or hallucinated output. The attorney must also disclose the use of generative AI to the court for all documents submitted to the court. Not yet in force until 1 January 2027.
Key points:
- (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.
- (a)(2) An attorney shall not delegate the practice of law to generative artificial intelligence.
- (a)(3)(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.
- (a)(3)(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.
- (a)(3)(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.
- (b)(2) “Personal identifying information” includes 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.
#### California Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7(b)(2) – Personal verification of citations in court filings (SB 574, Stats. 2026, ch. 858)
- Type: Legislation
- Issuer: California Legislature
- Date on page: 30 September 2026
- Effective date: 1 January 2027
- Status: Starts 1 January 2027 (not yet in force)
- Last checked 11 October 2026
- URL: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB574
- Recorded under United States; shown here because the issuer is in California.
SB 574 amends Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 so that a brief, pleading, motion or other paper filed in any California court must not contain citations that the responsible attorney has not personally verified. This includes citations provided by generative AI. It binds lawyers who submit filings. Breaches are subject to the section 128.7 sanctions framework, but monetary sanctions for a breach of paragraph (b)(2) may not be awarded against a represented party. Not yet in force until 1 January 2027.
Key points:
- (b)(2)(A) A brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court shall not contain any citations that an attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally verified, including any citation provided by generative artificial intelligence.
- (c)(1) Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, associates, and employees.
- (d)(1) Monetary sanctions may not be awarded against a represented party for a violation of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b).
## Sources
12 sources, each with its issuer and the date it was last checked.
- Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Appellate Division: [Appellate Division Administrative Order No. 26/01: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence](https://www.occourts.org/system/files/local-rules/appellate-division-administrative-order-no-2601-use-generative-artificial-intelligence.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026
- Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Three: [Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P., B331918 (published opinion on AI-fabricated citations)](https://courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/B331918.PDF) · last checked 31 October 2026
- Judicial Council of California: [California Rules of Court, rule 10.430: Generative artificial intelligence use policies](https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/ten/rule10_430) · last checked 31 October 2026
- Judicial Council of California: [California Standards of Judicial Administration, standard 10.80: Use of generative artificial intelligence by judicial officers](https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/standards/Standard10_80) · last checked 31 October 2026
- Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo: [Court Policy on the Use of Generative AI for Court Filings and Documents](https://sanmateo.courts.ca.gov/system/files/news/court-policy-use-generative-ai-court-filings-and-documents.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026
- 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 version)](https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/ethics/Generative-AI-Practical-Guidance.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026
- State Bar of California: [Ethics & Technology Resources: technology competence (Rule 1.1 Comment 1) and technology MCLE](https://www.calbar.ca.gov/legal-professionals/ethics-compliance-practice-resources/ethics/ethics-technology-resources) · last checked 31 October 2026
- State Bar of California (Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct): [Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct Related to Artificial Intelligence (rules 1.1, 1.4, 1.6, 3.3, 5.1, 5.3)](https://www.calbar.ca.gov/public/public-meetings-comment/public-comment/public-comment-archives/2026-public-comment/proposed-amendments-rules-professional-conduct-related-artificial-intelligence) · last checked 31 October 2026
- California Legislature: [California Business and Professions Code section 6068.1 – Attorneys' use of generative artificial intelligence (SB 574, Stats. 2026, ch. 858)](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB574) · last checked 11 October 2026
- [California State Senate](https://sjud.senate.ca.gov/system/files/2026-01/sb-574-umberg-sjud-analysis.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026
- [Office of the Governor of California](https://www.gov.ca.gov/2026/09/30/californias-nation-leading-ai-framework-just-got-stronger-governor-newsom-signs-more-first-in-the-nation-worker-protections-and-more/) · last checked 31 October 2026
- [State Bar of California](https://www.calbar.ca.gov/public-comment/2026-public-comment) · last checked 31 October 2026
## Key facts
- Kind: State
- Task versions written for this jurisdiction: 0
- AI instruments recorded: 10
*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*