Existing law, the State Bar Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of attorneys by the State Bar of California, a public corporation. The act requires an attorney to strictly maintain client confidences and to preserve client secrets at their own peril.

This bill would prohibit an attorney from delegating the practice of law to generative artificial intelligence. The bill would require an attorney who uses generative artificial intelligence to assist in the practice of law to, among other things, not enter confidential, personal identifying, and other nonpublic information into a generative artificial intelligence system, as specified. The bill would also require an attorney to take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of generative artificial intelligence outputs and to correct any erroneous or hallucinated output in any material used by the attorney.

Existing law requires every pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper to be signed by the attorney of record, or if a party is unrepresented, by the party, thereby certifying to the best of the persons knowledge, information, and belief that it is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose and that the claims, defenses, and legal and factual contentions are warranted, as specified.

This bill would prohibit a brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court from containing any citations that an attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally verified, including any citation provided by generative artificial intelligence.

Existing law, the California Arbitration Act, provides a statutory framework for the enforcement of contractual arbitration under California law. The act establishes that a written agreement to submit a present or future controversy to arbitration is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable, except as specified. The act defines a neutral arbitrator as one who is selected jointly by the parties or by the parties arbitrators, or is appointed by the court if the parties or their arbitrators cannot jointly select an arbitrator. The act requires a person selected to serve as a neutral arbitrator to disclose all matters that could cause a person aware of the facts to reasonably entertain a doubt as to the proposed neutral arbitrators impartiality.

This bill would prohibit an arbitrator from delegating any part of their decisionmaking process to any generative artificial intelligence tool, and would prohibit an arbitrator from relying on information generated by generative artificial intelligence outside the record without making appropriate disclosures to the parties beforehand, as specified.

The California Constitution establishes the Judicial Council, and requires the Judicial Council to adopt rules for court administration, practice, and procedure, and to undertake certain responsibilities with regard to court facilities.

This bill would require the Judicial Council to publicly revisit a specified standard of judicial administration to incorporate any necessary changes reflecting the further development of generative artificial intelligence.

Existing law requires the State Bar to create a program to certify alternative resolution firms, providers, or practitioners. Existing law requires the program to include procedures to verify, among other things, that a firm, provider, or practitioner has procedures in place for persons to make complaints regarding the failure of an arbitrator or mediator of the firm, provider, or practitioner to comply with ethical standards, as applicable, and procedures to remedy failures of arbitrators or mediators to comply with those standards.

This bill would instead require the State Bar to adopt procedures for the State Bar or a professional organization to receive, investigate, and resolve any complaints that a certified firm, provider, or practitioner failed to comply with the applicable ethical standards of conduct, as specified. The bill would require complaint proceedings to occur in private and be confidential. After a decision on a complaint, the bill would authorize the State Bar to publicly disclose information or records concerning complaint proceedings that do not reveal confidential or privileged communications. The bill would exempt information, records, or communications provided under these provisions from disclosure under the Public Records Act.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

Existing law, the State Bar Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of attorneys by the State Bar of California, a public corporation. The act requires an attorney to strictly maintain client confidences and to preserve client secrets at their own peril.

This bill would prohibit an attorney from delegating the practice of law to generative artificial intelligence. The bill would require an attorney who uses generative artificial intelligence to assist in the practice of law to, among other things, not enter confidential, personal identifying, and other nonpublic information into a generative artificial intelligence system, as specified. The bill would also require an attorney to take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of generative artificial intelligence outputs and to correct any erroneous or hallucinated output in any material used by the attorney.

Existing law requires every pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper to be signed by the attorney of record, or if a party is unrepresented, by the party, thereby certifying to the best of the persons knowledge, information, and belief that it is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose and that the claims, defenses, and legal and factual contentions are warranted, as specified.

This bill would prohibit a brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court from containing any citations that an attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally verified, including any citation provided by generative artificial intelligence.

Existing law, the California Arbitration Act, provides a statutory framework for the enforcement of contractual arbitration under California law. The act establishes that a written agreement to submit a present or future controversy to arbitration is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable, except as specified. The act defines a neutral arbitrator as one who is selected jointly by the parties or by the parties arbitrators, or is appointed by the court if the parties or their arbitrators cannot jointly select an arbitrator. The act requires a person selected to serve as a neutral arbitrator to disclose all matters that could cause a person aware of the facts to reasonably entertain a doubt as to the proposed neutral arbitrators impartiality.

This bill would prohibit an arbitrator from delegating any part of their decisionmaking process to any generative artificial intelligence tool, and would prohibit an arbitrator from relying on information generated by generative artificial intelligence outside the record without making appropriate disclosures to the parties beforehand, as specified.

The California Constitution establishes the Judicial Council, and requires the Judicial Council to adopt rules for court administration, practice, and procedure, and to undertake certain responsibilities with regard to court facilities.

This bill would require the Judicial Council to publicly revisit a specified standard of judicial administration to incorporate any necessary changes reflecting the further development of generative artificial intelligence.

Existing law requires the State Bar to create a program to certify alternative resolution firms, providers, or practitioners. Existing law requires the program to include procedures to verify, among other things, that a firm, provider, or practitioner has procedures in place for persons to make complaints regarding the failure of an arbitrator or mediator of the firm, provider, or practitioner to comply with ethical standards, as applicable, and procedures to remedy failures of arbitrators or mediators to comply with those standards.

This bill would instead require the State Bar to adopt procedures for the State Bar or a professional organization to receive, investigate, and resolve any complaints that a certified firm, provider, or practitioner failed to comply with the applicable ethical standards of conduct, as specified. The bill would require complaint proceedings to occur in private and be confidential. After a decision on a complaint, the bill would authorize the State Bar to publicly disclose information or records concerning complaint proceedings that do not reveal confidential or privileged communications. The bill would exempt information, records, or communications provided under these provisions from disclosure under the Public Records Act.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

Existing law, the State Bar Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of attorneys by the State Bar of California, a public corporation. The act requires an attorney to strictly maintain client confidences and to preserve client secrets at their own peril.

This bill would prohibit an attorney from delegating the practice of law to generative artificial intelligence. The bill would require an attorney who uses generative artificial intelligence to assist in the practice of law to, among other things, not enter confidential, personal identifying, and other nonpublic information into a generative artificial intelligence system, as specified. The bill would also require an attorney to take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of generative artificial intelligence outputs and to correct any erroneous or hallucinated output in any material used by the attorney.

Existing law requires every pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper to be signed by the attorney of record, or if a party is unrepresented, by the party, thereby certifying to the best of the persons knowledge, information, and belief that it is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose and that the claims, defenses, and legal and factual contentions are warranted, as specified.

This bill would prohibit a brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court from containing any citations that an attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally verified, including any citation provided by generative artificial intelligence.

Existing law, the California Arbitration Act, provides a statutory framework for the enforcement of contractual arbitration under California law. The act establishes that a written agreement to submit a present or future controversy to arbitration is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable, except as specified. The act defines a neutral arbitrator as one who is selected jointly by the parties or by the parties arbitrators, or is appointed by the court if the parties or their arbitrators cannot jointly select an arbitrator. The act requires a person selected to serve as a neutral arbitrator to disclose all matters that could cause a person aware of the facts to reasonably entertain a doubt as to the proposed neutral arbitrators impartiality.

This bill would prohibit an arbitrator from delegating any part of their decisionmaking process to any generative artificial intelligence tool, and would prohibit an arbitrator from relying on information generated by generative artificial intelligence outside the record without making appropriate disclosures to the parties beforehand, as specified.

The California Constitution establishes the Judicial Council, and requires the Judicial Council to adopt rules for court administration, practice, and procedure, and to undertake certain responsibilities with regard to court facilities.

This bill would require the Judicial Council to publicly revisit a specified standard of judicial administration to incorporate any necessary changes reflecting the further development of generative artificial intelligence.

Existing law requires the State Bar to create a program to certify alternative resolution firms, providers, or practitioners. Existing law requires the program to include procedures to verify, among other things, that a firm, provider, or practitioner has procedures in place for persons to make complaints regarding the failure of an arbitrator or mediator of the firm, provider, or practitioner to comply with ethical standards, as applicable, and procedures to remedy failures of arbitrators or mediators to comply with those standards.

This bill would instead require the State Bar to adopt procedures for the State Bar or a professional organization to receive, investigate, and resolve any complaints that a certified firm, provider, or practitioner failed to comply with the applicable ethical standards of conduct, as specified. The bill would require complaint proceedings to occur in private and be confidential. After a decision on a complaint, the bill would authorize the State Bar to publicly disclose information or records concerning complaint proceedings that do not reveal confidential or privileged communications. The bill would exempt information, records, or communications provided under these provisions from disclosure under the Public Records Act.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

Existing law, the State Bar Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of attorneys by the State Bar of California, a public corporation. The act requires an attorney to strictly maintain client confidences and to preserve client secrets at their own peril.

This bill would prohibit an attorney from delegating the practice of law to generative artificial intelligence. The bill would require an attorney who uses generative artificial intelligence to assist in the practice of law to, among other things, not enter confidential, personal identifying, or and other nonpublic information into a public generative artificial intelligence system, as specified. The bill would also require an attorney to take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of generative artificial intelligence outputs and to correct any erroneous or hallucinated output in any material used by the attorney.

Existing law requires every pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper to be signed by the attorney of record, or if a party is unrepresented, by the party, thereby certifying to the best of the persons knowledge, information, and belief that it is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose and that the claims, defenses, and legal and factual contentions are warranted, as specified.

This bill would prohibit a brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court from containing any citations that the an attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally read and verified, including any citation provided by generative artificial intelligence.

Existing law, the California Arbitration Act, provides a statutory framework for the enforcement of contractual arbitration under California law. The act establishes that a written agreement to submit a present or future controversy to arbitration is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable, except as specified. The act defines a neutral arbitrator as one who is selected jointly by the parties or by the parties arbitrators, or is appointed by the court if the parties or their arbitrators cannot jointly select an arbitrator. The act requires a person selected to serve as a neutral arbitrator to disclose all matters that could cause a person aware of the facts to reasonably entertain a doubt as to the proposed neutral arbitrators impartiality.

This bill would prohibit an arbitrator from delegating any part of their decisionmaking process to any generative artificial intelligence tool. The bill would prohibit an arbitrator from relying on information generated by generative artificial intelligence outside the record without making appropriate disclosures to the parties beforehand. The bill would require an arbitrator to assume responsibility for all aspects of an award, regardless of any use of generative artificial intelligence tools to assist with the decisionmaking process. tool, and would prohibit an arbitrator from relying on information generated by generative artificial intelligence outside the record without making appropriate disclosures to the parties beforehand, as specified.

The California Constitution establishes the Judicial Council, and requires the Judicial Council to adopt rules for court administration, practice, and procedure, and to undertake certain responsibilities with regard to court facilities.

This bill would require the Judicial Council to publicly revisit a specified standard of judicial administration to incorporate any necessary changes reflecting the further development of generative artificial intelligence.

Existing law requires the State Bar to create a program to certify alternative resolution firms, providers, or practitioners. Existing law requires the program to include procedures to verify, among other things, that a firm, provider, or practitioner has procedures in place for persons to make complaints regarding the failure of an arbitrator or mediator of the firm, provider, or practitioner to comply with ethical standards, as applicable, and procedures to remedy failures of arbitrators or mediators to comply with those standards.

This bill would instead require the State Bar to adopt procedures for the State Bar or a professional organization to receive, investigate, and resolve any complaints that a certified firm, provider, or practitioner failed to comply with the applicable ethical standards of conduct, as specified. The bill would require complaint proceedings to occur in private and be confidential. After a decision on a complaint, the bill would authorize the State Bar to publicly disclose information or records concerning complaint proceedings that do not reveal confidential or privileged communications. The bill would exempt information, records, or communications provided under these provisions from disclosure under the Public Records Act.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

Existing law, the State Bar Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of attorneys by the State Bar of California, a public corporation. The act requires an attorney to strictly maintain client confidences and to preserve client secrets at their own peril.

This bill would obligate prohibit an attorney who uses from delegating the practice of law to generative artificial intelligence. The bill would require an attorney who uses generative artificial intelligence to assist in the practice of law to ensure that confidential to, among other things, not enter confidential, personal identifying, or other nonpublic information, is not entered information into a public generative artificial intelligence system. system, as specified. The bill would also require an attorney to ensure that take reasonable steps are taken to verify the accuracy of generative artificial intelligence material outputs and to correct any erroneous or hallucinated output in any material used by the attorney.

Existing law requires every pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper to be signed by the attorney of record, or if a party is unrepresented, by the party, thereby certifying to the best of the persons knowledge, information, and belief that it is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose and that the claims, defenses, and legal and factual contentions are warranted, as specified.

This bill would prohibit a brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court from containing any citations that the attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally read and verified, including any citation provided by generative artificial intelligence.

Existing law, the California Arbitration Act, provides a statutory framework for the enforcement of contractual arbitration under California law. The act establishes that a written agreement to submit a present or future controversy to arbitration is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable, except as specified. The act defines a neutral arbitrator as one who is selected jointly by the parties or by the parties arbitrators, or is appointed by the court if the parties or their arbitrators cannot jointly select an arbitrator. The act requires a person selected to serve as a neutral arbitrator to disclose all matters that could cause a person aware of the facts to reasonably entertain a doubt as to the proposed neutral arbitrators impartiality.

This bill would prohibit an arbitrator from delegating any part of their decisionmaking process to any generative artificial intelligence tool. The bill would prohibit an arbitrator from relying on information generated by generative artificial intelligence outside the record without making appropriate disclosures to the parties beforehand. The bill would require an arbitrator to assume responsibility for all aspects of an award, regardless of any use of generative artificial intelligence tools to assist with the decisionmaking process.

Existing law requires the State Bar to create a program to certify alternative resolution firms, providers, or practitioners. Existing law requires the program to include procedures to verify, among other things, that a firm, provider, or practitioner has procedures in place for persons to make complaints regarding the failure of an arbitrator or mediator of the firm, provider, or practitioner to comply with ethical standards, as applicable, and procedures to remedy failures of arbitrators or mediators to comply with those standards.

This bill would instead require the State Bar to adopt procedures for the State Bar or a professional organization to receive, investigate, and resolve any complaints that a certified firm, provider, or practitioner failed to comply with the applicable ethical standards of conduct, as specified. The bill would require complaint proceedings to occur in private and be confidential. After a decision on a complaint, the bill would authorize the State Bar to publicly disclose information or records concerning complaint proceedings that do not reveal confidential or privileged communications. The bill would exempt information, records, or communications provided under these provisions from disclosure under the Public Records Act.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

Existing law, the State Bar Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of attorneys by the State Bar of California, a public corporation. The act requires an attorney to strictly maintain client confidences and to preserve client secrets at their own peril.

This bill would obligate an attorney who uses generative artificial intelligence to practice law to ensure that confidential personal identifying, or other nonpublic information, is not entered into a public generative artificial intelligence system. The bill would also require an attorney to ensure that reasonable steps are taken to verify the accuracy of generative artificial intelligence material and to correct any erroneous or hallucinated output in any material used by the attorney.

Existing law requires every pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper to be signed by the attorney of record, or if a party is unrepresented, by the party, thereby certifying to the best of the persons knowledge, information, and belief that it is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose and that the claims, defenses, and legal and factual contentions are warranted, as specified.

This bill would prohibit a brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court from containing any citations that the attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally read and verified, including any citation provided by generative artificial intelligence.

Existing law, the California Arbitration Act, provides a statutory framework for the enforcement of contractual arbitration under California law. The act establishes that a written agreement to submit a present or future controversy to arbitration is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable, except as specified. The act defines a neutral arbitrator as one who is selected jointly by the parties or by the parties arbitrators, or is appointed by the court if the parties or their arbitrators cannot jointly select an arbitrator. The act requires a person selected to serve as a neutral arbitrator to disclose all matters that could cause a person aware of the facts to reasonably entertain a doubt as to the proposed neutral arbitrators impartiality.

This bill would prohibit an arbitrator from delegating any part of their decision-making decisionmaking process to any generative artificial intelligence tool. The bill would prohibit an arbitrator from relying on information generated by generative artificial intelligence outside the record without making appropriate disclosures to the parties beforehand. The bill would require an arbitrator to assume responsibility for all aspects of an award, regardless of any use of generative artificial intelligence tools to assist with the decision-making decisionmaking process.

Existing law establishes the University of California, under the administration of the Regents of the University of California, as one of the segments of public postsecondary education in the state. Existing law requests the University of California to report annually to the fiscal committees of the Legislature, on or before January 15 of each year, information regarding its decision to contract for services at newly developed facilities, as specified.

This bill would make a nonsubstantive change to the latter provision.

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 574

Author: Umberg (D), et al.

Amended: 8/21/26

Vote: 21

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 13-0, 1/13/26

AYES: Umberg, Niello, Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Reyes, Stern, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 1/22/26

AYES: Caballero, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Dahle, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0, 1/29/26

AYES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Reyes

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 75-0, 8/31/26 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Attorneys, arbitrators, judicial officers, and alternative resolution providers

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill governs the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) by an attorney to assist in the practice of law, prohibits an attorney from delegating the practice of law to generative AI, prohibits an arbitrator from delegating any part of their decision-making process to any generative AI, as provided, requires the Judicial Council to publicly revisit a specified standard of judicial administration to incorporate any necessary changes reflecting the further development of generative AI, and prohibits a brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court from containing any citations that the an attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally read and verified, including any citation provided by generative AI.

Assembly Amendments

require a judicial officer to disclose whether they or any other person involved in the process of researching or drafting any order, ruling, decision, finding, recommendation, or other determination made by that officer relied on generative artificial intelligence in that process, requires the State Bar to adopt procedures for the State Bar or a professional organization to receive, investigate, and resolve any complaints that a certified firm, provider, or practitioner failed to comply with the applicable ethical standards of conduct, as specified, and places other regulations on the use of generative AI by alternative resolution providers.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires every pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper to be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s individual name, or, if the party is not represented by an attorney, by the party. (Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7.)
2. Provides that by presenting to the court, whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating, a pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, all of the following conditions are met:
   1. it is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;
   2. the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;
   3. the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
   4. the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief. (Ibid.)
3. Requires all attorneys who practice law in California to be licensed by the State Bar and establishes the State Bar, within the judicial branch of state government, for the purpose of regulating the legal profession. (California Constitution, article (art.) VI, § 9; Business & Professions (Bus. & Prof.) Code §§ 6000 et seq.)
4. Governs arbitrations in California pursuant to the California Arbitration Act (CAA), including the enforcement of arbitration agreements, rules for neutral arbitrators, the conduct of arbitration proceedings, and the enforcement of arbitration awards. (Code of Civil (Civ.) Procedure (Proc.) § 1280 et. seq.)
5. Requires the State Bar to create a program to certify alternative dispute resolution firms, providers, or practitioners, as provided. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6173.)

This bill:

1. Prohibits an attorney from delegating the practice of law to generative AI.
2. Provides that an attorney who uses generative AI to assist in the practice of law must do the following listed below.
   1. 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.
   2. Take reasonable steps are taken to:
      1. verify the accuracy of generative AI outputs, including, but not limited to, the accuracy of all case and statutory citations;
      2. correct any erroneous or hallucinated output in any material used by the attorney.
   3. Disclose the use of generative AI to the court for all documents submitted to the court and consider whether to disclose the use of generative AI if it is used to create content provided to the public.
3. Prohibits a brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court from containing any citations that an attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally read and verified, including any citation provided by generative AI.
4. Prohibits an arbitrator from delegating any part of their decision-making process to any generative AI tool.
5. Prohibits an arbitrator from relying on information generated by generative AI outside the record without making appropriate disclosures to the parties beforehand and, as far as practical, allowing the parties to comment on its use.
6. Prohibits an arbitrator from relinquishing their decision-making powers to generative AI and delegating any tasks to generative AI tools if such use could influence procedural or substantive decisions.
7. Defines “generative artificial intelligence” means an AI 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.
8. Requires the State Bar to adopt procedures for the State Bar or a professional organization to receive, investigate, and resolve any complaints that a certified firm, provider, or practitioner failed to comply with the applicable ethical standards of conduct, as provided.
   1. All complaint proceedings shall occur in private and be kept confidential. No confidential or privileged information, records, or communications concerning the receipt, investigation, or resolution of a complaint may be disclosed outside the course of the complaint proceeding, except as specified.
   2. After a decision on a complaint, the State Bar may publicly disclose information or records concerning the complaint proceeding that do not reveal any confidential or privileged communications, including the name of a certified firm, provider, or practitioner that has been found to have violated an applicable ethical standard, any action that has been taken to remedy the violation, and the general basis on which the action was taken.
   3. Any information, records, or communications provided under this paragraph shall not be disclosed under the California Public Records Act.

Comments

The California State Bar’s Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct released guidance on the use of generative AI noting that:

Generative AI use presents unique challenges; it uses large volumes of data, there are many competing AI models and products, and, even for those who create generative AI products, there is a lack of clarity as to how it works. In addition, generative AI poses the risk of encouraging greater reliance and trust on its outputs because of its purpose to generate responses and its ability to do so in a manner that projects confidence and effectively emulates human responses. A lawyer should consider these and other risks before using generative AI in providing legal services.^[1]

Recently, an attorney was fined $10,000 for filing a state court appeal full of fake quotations generated by the AI tool ChatGPT. The Court of Appeal noted that “nearly all of the quotations in plaintiff's opening brief, and many of the quotations in plaintiff's reply brief, have been fabricated.”^[2] The opinion further elucidated that the attorney of record admitted he used AI to “support citation of legal issues” and that the “fabricated quotes were AI-generated. He further asserted that he had not been aware that generative AI frequently fabricates or hallucinates legal sources and, thus, he did not ‘manually verify [the quotations] against more reliable sources.”^[3] The court of appeal published the opinion as a warning to the legal community writing “[s]imply stated, no brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court should contain any citations—whether provided by generative AI or any other source—that the attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally read and verified.”^[4]

The American Arbitration Association–International Centre for Dispute Resolution (AAA-ICDR) announced in September of 2025 that it was releasing an AI arbitrator to resolve actual cases for two-party, documents only construction cases where both parties opted in to its use.^[5] The AA-ICDR websites states:

the AI arbitrator was trained on actual arbitrator reasoning from AAA-ICDR construction cases and calibrated and trained with human arbitrator input. With each step of the dispute resolution process, the AI arbitrator will evaluate the merits of claims, generate explainable recommendations, and prepare draft awards that will be benchmarked to maintain alignment with expert human legal judgment. A human-in-the-loop framework embeds human arbitrators to review reasoning, evaluate and, if needed, revise AI-driven outcomes before a decision is finalized, and validate results, safeguarding trust, transparency, and due process.^[6]

The California Rules of Court Standard 10.80 prescribe rules for the use of generative AI for any task with an adjudicative role. These include:

• not entering confidential, personal identifying, or other nonpublic information into a public generative AI system;
• not using generative AI to unlawfully discriminate against or disparately impact individuals or communities based on certain protected classifications;
• taking reasonable steps to remove any biased, offensive, or harmful content in any generative AI material used, including any material prepared on their behalf by others; and
• considering whether to disclose the use of generative AI if it is used to create content provided to the public.

This bill seeks to provide basic guidelines for the use of generative AI by attorneys, judges, arbitrators and mediators by modeling some of its provisions off the California Rules of Court Standard 10.80 and the ruling in Noland regarding verifying cases and citations used in documents submitted to the courts.

This bill also amends the existing alternative dispute resolution voluntary certification program overseen by the State Bar to require the State Bar to adopt procedures for the State Bar or a professional organization to receive, investigate, and resolve any complaints that a certified firm, provider, or practitioner failed to comply with the applicable ethical standards of conduct, as specified. The complaint proceedings must occur in private and be confidential. After a decision on a complaint, the State Bar is authorized to publicly disclose information or records concerning complaint proceedings that do not reveal confidential or privileged communications. Under this bill certain information would be exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/27/26)

California State Council of Service Employees International Union (seiu California)

Oakland Privacy

TechEquity Action

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/27/26)

American Arbitration Association

California Dispute Resolution Council

California Lawyers Association, Litigation Section, ADR Committee

Collaborative Practice California

Family Law Section Los Angeles County Bar Association

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The author writes:

Artificial Intelligence and its use now permeate every industry in the U.S. Its capabilities continue to improve at an exponential rate, but it is far from perfect. We must be cautious when determining best practices for its use in high-stakes industries, including the legal profession. SB 574 protects those receiving legal services by codifying certain safeguards for the use of A.I. by attorneys and arbitrators.

Oakland Privacy writes in support stating:

Oakland Privacy writes to offer our support to Senate Bill 574. The bill would prevent attorneys from entering the personal information of clients or other individuals into a public generative AI system, require all citations in a legal filing, including those generated by an AI system, to be personally verified by the filing attorney, and limits the role of artificial intelligence programs in arbitration decisions. […]

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The American Arbitration Association writes in opposition stating:

We have previously communicated our concerns and modest suggested amendments to the AI elements of this bill via a letter transmitted yesterday.

New section (b)(2)(B) in SB 574 would eliminate the long-standing assurance of mediation priviledge/confidentiality for parties who use a State Bar-certified mediator. The result is likely to be greatly reduced participation in the voluntary certification program by mediators.

The legislature should consider removing this section from SB 574 to preserve the important ability of mediators to maintain confidentiality, as has been allowed under California law for over three decades. We also urge the committees to adopt our amendments to the AI provisions of this legislation, as detailed in our letter of June 25, 2026.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 75-0, 8/31/26

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Carrillo, Harabedian, McKinnor, Muratsuchi

Prepared by: Amanda Mattson / JUD. / (916) 651-4113

9/16/26 14:19:20

**** END ****

1. State Bar of Cal. Standing Comm. on Prof. Responsibility and Conduct, Practical Guidance for the use if Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law, available at https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/ethics/Generative-AI-Practical-Guidance.pdf. ↑

2. Noland v. Land of the Free (2025) 114 Cal.App.5^th 426 at 435. ↑

3. Id. at 441. ↑

4. Id. at 430. ↑

5. AAA-ICDR® to Launch AI-Native Arbitrator, Transforming Dispute Resolution, Amer. Arbitration Assn., (Sept. 17, 2025), https://www.adr.org/press-releases/aaa-icdr-to-launch-ai-native-arbitrator-transforming-dispute-resolution/. ↑

6. Ibid. ↑

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 574

Author: Umberg (D), et al.

Amended: 8/21/26

Vote: 21

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 13-0, 1/13/26

AYES: Umberg, Niello, Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Reyes, Stern, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 1/22/26

AYES: Caballero, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Dahle, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0, 1/29/26

AYES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Reyes

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: Passed, 8/31/26

SUBJECT: Attorneys, arbitrators, judicial officers, and alternative resolution providers

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill governs the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) by an attorney to assist in the practice of law, prohibits an attorney from delegating the practice of law to generative AI, prohibits an arbitrator from delegating any part of their decision-making process to any generative AI, as provided, requires the Judicial Council to publicly revisit a specified standard of judicial administration to incorporate any necessary changes reflecting the further development of generative AI, and prohibits a brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court from containing any citations that the an attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally read and verified, including any citation provided by generative AI.

Assembly Amendments

require a judicial officer to disclose whether they or any other person involved in the process of researching or drafting any order, ruling, decision, finding, recommendation, or other determination made by that officer relied on generative artificial intelligence in that process, requires the State Bar to adopt procedures for the State Bar or a professional organization to receive, investigate, and resolve any complaints that a certified firm, provider, or practitioner failed to comply with the applicable ethical standards of conduct, as specified, and places other regulations on the use of generative AI by alternative resolution providers.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires every pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper to be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s individual name, or, if the party is not represented by an attorney, by the party. (Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7.)
2. Provides that by presenting to the court, whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating, a pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, all of the following conditions are met:
   1. it is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;
   2. the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;
   3. the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
   4. the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief. (Ibid.)
3. Requires all attorneys who practice law in California to be licensed by the State Bar and establishes the State Bar, within the judicial branch of state government, for the purpose of regulating the legal profession. (California Constitution, article (art.) VI, § 9; Business & Professions (Bus. & Prof.) Code §§ 6000 et seq.)
4. Governs arbitrations in California pursuant to the California Arbitration Act (CAA), including the enforcement of arbitration agreements, rules for neutral arbitrators, the conduct of arbitration proceedings, and the enforcement of arbitration awards. (Code of Civil (Civ.) Procedure (Proc.) § 1280 et. seq.)
5. Requires the State Bar to create a program to certify alternative dispute resolution firms, providers, or practitioners, as provided. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6173.)

This bill:

1. Prohibits an attorney from delegating the practice of law to generative AI.
2. Provides that an attorney who uses generative AI to assist in the practice of law must do the following listed below.
   1. 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.
   2. Take reasonable steps are taken to:
      1. verify the accuracy of generative AI outputs, including, but not limited to, the accuracy of all case and statutory citations;
      2. correct any erroneous or hallucinated output in any material used by the attorney.
   3. Disclose the use of generative AI to the court for all documents submitted to the court and consider whether to disclose the use of generative AI if it is used to create content provided to the public.
3. Prohibits a brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court from containing any citations that an attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally read and verified, including any citation provided by generative AI.
4. Prohibits an arbitrator from delegating any part of their decision-making process to any generative AI tool.
5. Prohibits an arbitrator from relying on information generated by generative AI outside the record without making appropriate disclosures to the parties beforehand and, as far as practical, allowing the parties to comment on its use.
6. Prohibits an arbitrator from relinquishing their decision-making powers to generative AI and delegating any tasks to generative AI tools if such use could influence procedural or substantive decisions.
7. Defines “generative artificial intelligence” means an AI 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.
8. Requires the State Bar to adopt procedures for the State Bar or a professional organization to receive, investigate, and resolve any complaints that a certified firm, provider, or practitioner failed to comply with the applicable ethical standards of conduct, as provided.
   1. All complaint proceedings shall occur in private and be kept confidential. No confidential or privileged information, records, or communications concerning the receipt, investigation, or resolution of a complaint may be disclosed outside the course of the complaint proceeding, except as specified.
   2. After a decision on a complaint, the State Bar may publicly disclose information or records concerning the complaint proceeding that do not reveal any confidential or privileged communications, including the name of a certified firm, provider, or practitioner that has been found to have violated an applicable ethical standard, any action that has been taken to remedy the violation, and the general basis on which the action was taken.
   3. Any information, records, or communications provided under this paragraph shall not be disclosed under the California Public Records Act.

Comments

The California State Bar’s Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct released guidance on the use of generative AI noting that:

Generative AI use presents unique challenges; it uses large volumes of data, there are many competing AI models and products, and, even for those who create generative AI products, there is a lack of clarity as to how it works. In addition, generative AI poses the risk of encouraging greater reliance and trust on its outputs because of its purpose to generate responses and its ability to do so in a manner that projects confidence and effectively emulates human responses. A lawyer should consider these and other risks before using generative AI in providing legal services.^[1]

Recently, an attorney was fined $10,000 for filing a state court appeal full of fake quotations generated by the AI tool ChatGPT. The Court of Appeal noted that “nearly all of the quotations in plaintiff's opening brief, and many of the quotations in plaintiff's reply brief, have been fabricated.”^[2] The opinion further elucidated that the attorney of record admitted he used AI to “support citation of legal issues” and that the “fabricated quotes were AI-generated. He further asserted that he had not been aware that generative AI frequently fabricates or hallucinates legal sources and, thus, he did not ‘manually verify [the quotations] against more reliable sources.”^[3] The court of appeal published the opinion as a warning to the legal community writing “[s]imply stated, no brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court should contain any citations—whether provided by generative AI or any other source—that the attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally read and verified.”^[4]

The American Arbitration Association–International Centre for Dispute Resolution (AAA-ICDR) announced in September of 2025 that it was releasing an AI arbitrator to resolve actual cases for two-party, documents only construction cases where both parties opted in to its use.^[5] The AA-ICDR websites states:

the AI arbitrator was trained on actual arbitrator reasoning from AAA-ICDR construction cases and calibrated and trained with human arbitrator input. With each step of the dispute resolution process, the AI arbitrator will evaluate the merits of claims, generate explainable recommendations, and prepare draft awards that will be benchmarked to maintain alignment with expert human legal judgment. A human-in-the-loop framework embeds human arbitrators to review reasoning, evaluate and, if needed, revise AI-driven outcomes before a decision is finalized, and validate results, safeguarding trust, transparency, and due process.^[6]

The California Rules of Court Standard 10.80 prescribe rules for the use of generative AI for any task with an adjudicative role. These include:

• not entering confidential, personal identifying, or other nonpublic information into a public generative AI system;
• not using generative AI to unlawfully discriminate against or disparately impact individuals or communities based on certain protected classifications;
• taking reasonable steps to remove any biased, offensive, or harmful content in any generative AI material used, including any material prepared on their behalf by others; and
• considering whether to disclose the use of generative AI if it is used to create content provided to the public.

This bill seeks to provide basic guidelines for the use of generative AI by attorneys, judges, arbitrators and mediators by modeling some of its provisions off the California Rules of Court Standard 10.80 and the ruling in Noland regarding verifying cases and citations used in documents submitted to the courts.

This bill also amends the existing alternative dispute resolution voluntary certification program overseen by the State Bar to require the State Bar to adopt procedures for the State Bar or a professional organization to receive, investigate, and resolve any complaints that a certified firm, provider, or practitioner failed to comply with the applicable ethical standards of conduct, as specified. The complaint proceedings must occur in private and be confidential. After a decision on a complaint, the State Bar is authorized to publicly disclose information or records concerning complaint proceedings that do not reveal confidential or privileged communications. Under this bill certain information would be exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/27/26)

California State Council of Service Employees International Union (seiu California)

Oakland Privacy

TechEquity Action

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/27/26)

American Arbitration Association

California Dispute Resolution Council

California Lawyers Association, Litigation Section, ADR Committee

Collaborative Practice California

Family Law Section Los Angeles County Bar Association

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The author writes:

Artificial Intelligence and its use now permeate every industry in the U.S. Its capabilities continue to improve at an exponential rate, but it is far from perfect. We must be cautious when determining best practices for its use in high-stakes industries, including the legal profession. SB 574 protects those receiving legal services by codifying certain safeguards for the use of A.I. by attorneys and arbitrators.

Oakland Privacy writes in support stating:

Oakland Privacy writes to offer our support to Senate Bill 574. The bill would prevent attorneys from entering the personal information of clients or other individuals into a public generative AI system, require all citations in a legal filing, including those generated by an AI system, to be personally verified by the filing attorney, and limits the role of artificial intelligence programs in arbitration decisions. […]

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The American Arbitration Association writes in opposition stating:

We have previously communicated our concerns and modest suggested amendments to the AI elements of this bill via a letter transmitted yesterday.

New section (b)(2)(B) in SB 574 would eliminate the long-standing assurance of mediation priviledge/confidentiality for parties who use a State Bar-certified mediator. The result is likely to be greatly reduced participation in the voluntary certification program by mediators.

The legislature should consider removing this section from SB 574 to preserve the important ability of mediators to maintain confidentiality, as has been allowed under California law for over three decades. We also urge the committees to adopt our amendments to the AI provisions of this legislation, as detailed in our letter of June 25, 2026.

Prepared by: Amanda Mattson / JUD. / (916) 651-4113

8/31/26 12:51:48

**** END ****

1. State Bar of Cal. Standing Comm. on Prof. Responsibility and Conduct, Practical Guidance for the use if Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law, available at https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/ethics/Generative-AI-Practical-Guidance.pdf. ↑

2. Noland v. Land of the Free (2025) 114 Cal.App.5^th 426 at 435. ↑

3. Id. at 441. ↑

4. Id. at 430. ↑

5. AAA-ICDR® to Launch AI-Native Arbitrator, Transforming Dispute Resolution, Amer. Arbitration Assn., (Sept. 17, 2025), https://www.adr.org/press-releases/aaa-icdr-to-launch-ai-native-arbitrator-transforming-dispute-resolution/. ↑

6. Ibid. ↑

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 574

Author:(Umberg)

As Amended Ver:August 21, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Provides guidelines for the use of generative artificial intelligence in the practice of law and modifies the existing mandate that the State Bar adopt a program to certify alternative resolution firms, providers, or practitioners.

Major Provisions

1. Provides that nothing in the bill abrogates an attorney's duty to exercise reasonable competence and diligence in the practice of law or delegate the practice of law to artificial intelligence.
2. Requires an attorney that uses generative artificial intelligence to assist in the practice law to do all the following:
   1. Not enter confidential, personal identifying, and other nonpublic information into a public generative artificial intelligence system, as specified;
   2. Take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of generative artificial materials, as specified;
   3. Disclose to the court the use of generative artificial intelligence if it is used to create content provided to the public.
3. Prohibits an arbitrator from delegating any part of their decision-making process to any generative artificial intelligence tool.
4. Provides that nothing in the bill abrogates an arbitrator's duty to maintain neutrality and exercise reasonable competence and diligence.
5. Prohibits an arbitrator from relying on information generated by generative artificial intelligence outside the record without making appropriate disclosures to the parties beforehand and, as far as practical, allowing the parties to comment on its use, as specified.
6. Authorizes, as a part of the State Bar's voluntary certification program for dispute resolution firms, providers, or practitioners, the State Bar or a professional organization approved by the State Bar to receive, investigate, and resolve any complaints that a certified firm, provider, or practitioner failed to comply with the applicable ethical standards of conduct.
7. Clarifies that the professional organization specified in 6) cannot be a voluntary association of attorneys.
8. Provides that notwithstanding privilege laws, alternative dispute resolution firms, providers, or practitioners certified by the State Bar, licensees of the State Bar, limited liability partnerships, or law corporations registered with the State Bar are to, pursuant to a request made as part of a procedure to address a complaint that a firm, provider, or practitioner violated applicable ethical standards, provide to the State Bar or its agents all requested information, records, or communications.
9. Clarifies that, notwithstanding 8), a person is not required to provide information, records, or communications protected by attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine unless each holder of the privilege or protection consents in writing to its production and that such information may only be used for the receipt, investigation, and resolution of a complaint.
10. Clarifies the mediation provisions as related to self-represented parties.
11. Provides that all arbitrator complaint proceedings are to occur in private and be kept confidential.
12. Permits, after a decision regarding a complaint against an arbitrator, the State Bar publicly disclose information or records concerning the complaint proceeding that do not reveal any confidential or privileged communications, including the name of a certified firm, provider, or practitioner that has been found to have violated an applicable ethical standard, any action that has been taken to remedy the violation, and the general basis on which the action was taken.
13. Exempts records provided to the State Bar for the purpose of adjudicating a complaint against an arbitrator from disclosure pursuant to the California Public Record Act.

COMMENTS

Like many sectors of the American economy, legal practitioners see potential efficiencies from using generative artificial intelligence. From drafting simple briefs to synthesizing large volumes of case research, artificial intelligence can eliminate hours of painstaking work for attorneys. Similarly, judges and arbitrators can use artificial intelligence tools to assist in research and drafting judgements, minute orders, and other legal findings. Beyond assisting in drafting legal rulings, last fall the American Arbitration Association–International Centre for Dispute Resolution (AAA-ICRD) announced it had developed an artificial intelligence tool that could resolve actual cases between two parties and generate the documents related with a decision so long as both parties opted in to its use. (AAA-ICDR® to Launch AI-Native Arbitrator, Transforming Dispute Resolution, Amer. Arbitration Assn., (Sept. 17, 2025), https://www.adr.org/press-releases/aaa-icdr-to-launch-ai-native-arbitrator-transforming-dispute-resolution/.)

Despite the efficiencies gained by the use of artificial intelligence, recent examples have demonstrated that the technology is no supplement for the training, judgment, and actual work of attorneys. In April, the State Bar instituted disciplinary actions against two attorneys that submitted false, artificial intelligence-generated content in court filings. (California Courts Newsroom, Two Attorneys Face Disciplinary Charges, Third Agrees to License Suspension for AI Misuse, Judicial Council of California (Apr. 13, 2026) available at: https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/two-attorneys-face-disciplinary-charges-third-agrees-license-suspension-ai-misuse.) Although not in California, earlier this month, a federal judge in Mississippi was forced to cancel a civil trial and fined attorneys on both sides of the dispute when it was determined that counsel for both the plaintiff and defendant submitted briefs with fake case citations as a result of outsourcing work to artificial intelligence. (Neil Vigdor, Judge Punishes 4 Lawyers After Catching Both Sides Using A.I. in Lawsuit, New York Times (June 9, 2026) available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/09/us/ai-lawyers-sanctioned-mississippi.html.) Although both the Judicial Council and the State Bar have adopted, and continue to refine, rules governing the use of artificial intelligence in the legal profession, cases like those mentioned above continue to occur with frightening regularity. Accordingly, the author of this bill contends that statutory guidance is necessary to regulate the use of artificial intelligence in the legal industry.

Thus, this bill seeks to address the growing use of artificial intelligence in the legal industry. The bill requires attorneys using artificial intelligence to ensure that no privileged or personal information is submitted to an artificial intelligence system, requires the attorney to check the work of the artificial intelligence system, and to ensure that any outputs from the artificial intelligence system do not introduce biased, offensive, or harmful content into materials being submitted to the court. The bill requires attorneys submitting materials to a court to attest that they actually read the cases they cite in the document, presumably preventing the filing of documents citing non-existent cases. The bill also seeks to ensure that artificial intelligence systems are not being used by arbitration service providers to make the actual judgment in the case.

In addition to regulating the use of artificial intelligence, this bill also builds upon the author's prior efforts to certify and regulate arbitration providers in California. In 2024, the author successfully passed legislation tasking the State Bar with developing a certification program for arbitration firms, providers, and practitioners. (SB 940 (Umberg) Chap. 986, Stats. 2024.) Although that bill laid out the certification program it lacked any meaningful enforcement mechanism or ability to investigate complaints against arbitrators. As the use of artificial intelligence by arbitrators grows, the author is now seeking to add a complaint process whereby parties who believe they have been aggrieved by an arbitrator may seek a venue for their grievances. Although driven by some arbitration providers developing artificial intelligence tools that may serve as the actual arbitrator, the complaint process would apply to all arbitrators – human and computer. The bill tasks the State Bar, or a professional organization certified by the State Bar, with serving as a body adjudicating complaints. The bill then adopts several provisions to protect privileged information from public disclosure while ensuring it can be evaluated during the review of a complaint. The bill states that the State Bar may announce the outcome of its complaint, but much like investigations into attorneys, the disclosure cannot occur when the complaint review is pending.

According to the Author

Artificial Intelligence and its use now permeate every industry in the U.S. Its capabilities continue to improve at an exponential rate, but it is far from perfect. We must be cautious when determining best practices for its use in high-stakes industries, including the legal profession. SB 574 protects those receiving legal services by codifying certain safeguards for the use of A.I. by attorneys and arbitrators.

Arguments in Support

This bill is supported by several organizations seeking to mitigate the worst potential impacts of artificial intelligence technology. In support of the bill, Oakland Privacy writes:

Senate Bill 574 proposes some modest baseline standards for a set of problems that seem to be considerably ramping up in frequency and for which remedies and standing expectations have been somewhat unclear.

The first standard established by the bill is to prevent the entry of several kinds of personal information about plaintiffs, defendants, witnesses or other individuals involved in a lawsuit into a public generative AI system like Chat GPT, Gemini, Claude or many others. The set of personal information data points includes identifying numbers including drivers licenses, [Social Security Number] (SS#), date of birth (DOB), addresses and phone numbers as well as [National Crime Information Center (NCIC)] ID's and medical, psychiatric and financial information. The bill includes a useful clause that allows additional data points that may be deemed confidential by court or statute, which makes the law adaptable to changing norms.

This clause is consistent with existing privacy laws in that it makes clear that attorney-client privilege does not extend as far as converting personal information into publicly available information that can be repurposed in multiple ways. We agree that consent or the lack thereof is somewhat irrelevant in this situation, as individuals involved in a lawsuit are under some level of relative coercion due to circumstances, and public generative AI systems can be used in many different ways by absolutely anyone.

Arguments in Opposition

The bill is opposed by the American Arbitration Association (AAA). They write:

As background, the AAA has taken a leadership role in promoting the responsible and ethical use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the field of arbitration. Last year, we developed and published "AAAi Standards for AI in [Alternative Dispute Resolution]ADR" (copy attached), which provides a comprehensive framework for the use of AI in the ADR field, focusing on six key areas: (i) Ethical & Human-Centered Values; (ii) Privacy & Security; (iii) Accuracy & Reliability; (iv) Explainability & Transparency; (v) Accountability; and (vi) Adaptability. Several elements of the AAAi Standards for AI align with the objectives of SB 574. The AAAi Standards also delineate the six key areas for the different roles involved in ADR: ADR administrators, neutrals (arbitrators and mediators), and advocates.

The AAA has also developed guidance for our arbitrators in their use of AI tools (copy attached), encouraging them to use this technology to streamline tasks and improve work quality while adhering to their professional obligations under applicable state rules, the Code of Ethics for Arbitrators in Commercial Disputes, the Code of Professional Responsibility for Arbitrators of Labor-Management Disputes, and other relevant requirements to ensure fairness, integrity, and confidentiality in arbitration.

Thoughtful calibration is essential to ensure that well-intentioned safeguards, such as those in SB 574, do not inadvertently impede innovation or the responsible adoption of new technologies that serve parties and the arbitration process.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. State Bar costs of an unknown amount, but likely in excess of $150,000 annually (State Bar Funds), to administer the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) complaint process. The State Bar estimates one to two full-time employees and one part-time supervisor would handle the entire ADR certification process, including complaint intake, investigation, and resolution, and states all costs fall within existing fee authority. Notably, that estimate covers the full certification program, which existing law already requires; only a portion is attributable to this bill. The State Bar cannot project complaint volume, citing uncertainty over how many firms and practitioners will seek certification.
2. Judicial Council costs of an unknown amount (Trial Court Trust Fund) to revisit and revise Standard 10.80.
3. Potential court cost pressures of an unknown, but potentially significant amount (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) from processing GenAI disclosures accompanying filed documents and from sanctions activity under the new citation standard.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0-1

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

ABS, ABST OR NV: Reyes

ASM JUDICIARY: 12-0-0

YES: Kalra, Macedo, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Dixon, Harabedian, Pacheco, Papan, Sanchez, Stefani, Zbur

ASM PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION: 15-0-0

YES: Bauer-Kahan, Macedo, Bryan, DeMaio, Hoover, Irwin, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Ortega, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Ward, Bennett, Wilson

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-0-4

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache

ABS, ABST OR NV: Hoover, Dixon, Ta, Tangipa

UPDATED

VERSION: August 21, 2026

CONSULTANT: Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0003967

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 574

Author:(Umberg)

As Amended Ver:August 13, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Provides guidelines for the use of generative artificial intelligence in the practice of law and modifies the existing mandate that the State Bar adopt a program to certify alternative resolution firms, providers, or practitioners.

Major Provisions

1. Provides that nothing in the bill abrogates an attorney's duty to exercise reasonable competence and diligence in the practice of law or delegate the practice of law to artificial intelligence.
2. Requires an attorney that uses generative artificial intelligence to assist in the practice law to do all the following:
   1. Not enter confidential, personal identifying, and other nonpublic information into a public generative artificial intelligence system, as specified;
   2. Take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of generative artificial materials, as specified;
   3. Disclose to the court the use of generative artificial intelligence if it is used to create content provided to the public.
3. Prohibits an arbitrator from delegating any part of their decision-making process to any generative artificial intelligence tool.
4. Provides that nothing in the bill abrogates an arbitrator's duty to maintain neutrality and exercise reasonable competence and diligence.
5. Prohibits an arbitrator from relying on information generated by generative artificial intelligence outside the record without making appropriate disclosures to the parties beforehand and, as far as practical, allowing the parties to comment on its use, as specified.
6. Authorizes, as a part of the State Bar's voluntary certification program for dispute resolution firms, providers, or practitioners, the State Bar or a professional organization approved by the State Bar to receive, investigate, and resolve any complaints that a certified firm, provider, or practitioner failed to comply with the applicable ethical standards of conduct.
7. Clarifies that the professional organization specified in 6) cannot be a voluntary association of attorneys.
8. Provides that notwithstanding privilege laws, alternative dispute resolution firms, providers, or practitioners certified by the State Bar, licensees of the State Bar, limited liability partnerships, or law corporations registered with the State Bar are to, pursuant to a request made as part of a procedure to address a complaint that a firm, provider, or practitioner violated applicable ethical standards, provide to the State Bar or its agents all requested information, records, or communications.
9. Clarifies that, notwithstanding 8), a person is not required to provide information, records, or communications protected by attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine unless each holder of the privilege or protection consents in writing to its production and that such information may only be used for the receipt, investigation, and resolution of a complaint.
10. Provides that all arbitrator complaint proceedings are to occur in private and be kept confidential.
11. Permits, after a decision regarding a complaint against an arbitrator, the State Bar publicly disclose information or records concerning the complaint proceeding that do not reveal any confidential or privileged communications, including the name of a certified firm, provider, or practitioner that has been found to have violated an applicable ethical standard, any action that has been taken to remedy the violation, and the general basis on which the action was taken.
12. Exempts records provided to the State Bar for the purpose of adjudicating a complaint against an arbitrator from disclosure pursuant to the California Public Record Act.

COMMENTS

Like many sectors of the American economy, legal practitioners see potential efficiencies from using generative artificial intelligence. From drafting simple briefs to synthesizing large volumes of case research, artificial intelligence can eliminate hours of painstaking work for attorneys. Similarly, judges and arbitrators can use artificial intelligence tools to assist in research and drafting judgements, minute orders, and other legal findings. Beyond assisting in drafting legal rulings, last fall the American Arbitration Association–International Centre for Dispute Resolution announced it had developed an artificial intelligence tool that could resolve actual cases between two parties and generate the documents related with a decision so long as both parties opted in to its use. (AAA-ICDR® to Launch AI-Native Arbitrator, Transforming Dispute Resolution, Amer. Arbitration Assn., (Sept. 17, 2025), https://www.adr.org/press-releases/aaa-icdr-to-launch-ai-native-arbitrator-transforming-dispute-resolution/.)

Despite the efficiencies gained by the use of artificial intelligence, recent examples have demonstrated that the technology is no supplement for the training, judgment, and actual work of attorneys. In April, the State Bar instituted disciplinary actions against two attorneys that submitted false, artificial intelligence-generated content in court filings. (California Courts Newsroom, Two Attorneys Face Disciplinary Charges, Third Agrees to License Suspension for AI Misuse, Judicial Council of California (Apr. 13, 2026) available at: https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/two-attorneys-face-disciplinary-charges-third-agrees-license-suspension-ai-misuse.) Although not in California, earlier this month, a federal judge in Mississippi was forced to cancel a civil trial and fined attorneys on both sides of the dispute when it was determined that counsel for both the plaintiff and defendant submitted briefs with fake case citations as a result of outsourcing work to artificial intelligence. (Neil Vigdor, Judge Punishes 4 Lawyers After Catching Both Sides Using A.I. in Lawsuit, New York Times (June 9, 2026) available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/09/us/ai-lawyers-sanctioned-mississippi.html.) Although both the Judicial Council and the State Bar have adopted, and continue to refine, rules governing the use of artificial intelligence in the legal profession, cases like those mentioned above continue to occur with frightening regularity. Accordingly, the author of this bill contends that statutory guidance is necessary to regulate the use of artificial intelligence in the legal industry.

Thus, this bill seeks to address the growing use of artificial intelligence in the legal industry. The bill requires attorneys using artificial intelligence to ensure that no privileged or personal information is submitted to an artificial intelligence system, requires the attorney to check the work of the artificial intelligence system, and to ensure that any outputs from the artificial intelligence system do not introduce biased, offensive, or harmful content into materials being submitted to the court. The bill requires attorneys submitting materials to a court to attest that they actually read the cases they cite in the document, presumably preventing the filing of documents citing non-existent cases. The bill also seeks to ensure that artificial intelligence systems are not being used by arbitration service providers to make the actual judgment in the case.

In addition to regulating the use of artificial intelligence, this bill also builds upon the author's prior efforts to certify and regulate arbitration providers in California. In 2024, the author successfully passed legislation tasking the State Bar with developing a certification program for arbitration firms, providers, and practitioners. (SB 940 (Umberg) Chap. 986, Stats. 2024.) Although that bill laid out the certification program it lacked any meaningful enforcement mechanism or ability to investigate complaints against arbitrators. As the use of artificial intelligence by arbitrators grows, the author is now seeking to add a complaint process whereby parties who believe they have been aggrieved by an arbitrator may seek a venue for their grievances. Although driven by some arbitration providers developing artificial intelligence tools that may serve as the actual arbitrator, the complaint process would apply to all arbitrators – human and computer. The bill tasks the State Bar, or a professional organization certified by the State Bar, with serving as a body adjudicating complaints. The bill then adopts several provisions to protect privileged information from public disclosure while ensuring it can be evaluated during the review of a complaint. The bill states that the State Bar may announce the outcome of its complaint, but much like investigations into attorneys, the disclosure cannot occur when the complaint review is pending.

According to the Author

Artificial Intelligence and its use now permeate every industry in the U.S. Its capabilities continue to improve at an exponential rate, but it is far from perfect. We must be cautious when determining best practices for its use in high-stakes industries, including the legal profession. SB 574 protects those receiving legal services by codifying certain safeguards for the use of A.I. by attorneys and arbitrators.

Arguments in Support

This bill is supported by several organizations seeking to mitigate the worst potential impacts of artificial intelligence technology. In support of the bill, Oakland Privacy writes:

Senate Bill 574 proposes some modest baseline standards for a set of problems that seem to be considerably ramping up in frequency and for which remedies and standing expectations have been somewhat unclear.

The first standard established by the bill is to prevent the entry of several kinds of personal information about plaintiffs, defendants, witnesses or other individuals involved in a lawsuit into a public generative AI system like Chat GPT, Gemini, Claude or many others. The set of personal information data points includes identifying numbers including drivers licenses, SS#, date of birth (DOB), addresses and phone numbers as well as [National Crime Information Center (NCIC)] ID's and medical, psychiatric and financial information. The bill includes a useful clause that allows additional data points that may be deemed confidential by court or statute, which makes the law adaptable to changing norms.

This clause is consistent with existing privacy laws in that it makes clear that attorney-client privilege does not extend as far as converting personal information into publicly available information that can be repurposed in multiple ways. We agree that consent or the lack thereof is somewhat irrelevant in this situation, as individuals involved in a lawsuit are under some level of relative coercion due to circumstances, and public generative AI systems can be used in many different ways by absolutely anyone.

Arguments in Opposition

The bill is opposed by the American Arbitration Association (AAA). They write:

As background, the AAA has taken a leadership role in promoting the responsible and ethical use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the field of arbitration. Last year, we developed and published "AAAi Standards for AI in [Alternative Dispute Resolution]ADR" (copy attached), which provides a comprehensive framework for the use of AI in the ADR field, focusing on six key areas: (i) Ethical & Human-Centered Values; (ii) Privacy & Security; (iii) Accuracy & Reliability; (iv) Explainability & Transparency; (v) Accountability; and (vi) Adaptability. Several elements of the AAAi Standards for AI align with the objectives of SB 574. The AAAi Standards also delineate the six key areas for the different roles involved in ADR: ADR administrators, neutrals (arbitrators and mediators), and advocates.

The AAA has also developed guidance for our arbitrators in their use of AI tools (copy attached), encouraging them to use this technology to streamline tasks and improve work quality while adhering to their professional obligations under applicable state rules, the Code of Ethics for Arbitrators in Commercial Disputes, the Code of Professional Responsibility for Arbitrators of Labor-Management Disputes, and other relevant requirements to ensure fairness, integrity, and confidentiality in arbitration.

Thoughtful calibration is essential to ensure that well-intentioned safeguards, such as those in SB 574, do not inadvertently impede innovation or the responsible adoption of new technologies that serve parties and the arbitration process.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. State Bar costs of an unknown amount, but likely in excess of $150,000 annually (State Bar Funds), to administer the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) complaint process. The State Bar estimates one to two full-time employees and one part-time supervisor would handle the entire ADR certification process, including complaint intake, investigation, and resolution, and states all costs fall within existing fee authority. Notably, that estimate covers the full certification program, which existing law already requires; only a portion is attributable to this bill. The State Bar cannot project complaint volume, citing uncertainty over how many firms and practitioners will seek certification.
2. Judicial Council costs of an unknown amount (Trial Court Trust Fund) to revisit and revise Standard 10.80.
3. Potential court cost pressures of an unknown, but potentially significant amount (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) from processing GenAI disclosures accompanying filed documents and from sanctions activity under the new citation standard.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0-1

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

ABS, ABST OR NV: Reyes

ASM JUDICIARY: 12-0-0

YES: Kalra, Macedo, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Dixon, Harabedian, Pacheco, Papan, Sanchez, Stefani, Zbur

ASM PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION: 15-0-0

YES: Bauer-Kahan, Macedo, Bryan, DeMaio, Hoover, Irwin, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Ortega, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Ward, Bennett, Wilson

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-0-4

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache

ABS, ABST OR NV: Hoover, Dixon, Ta, Tangipa

UPDATED

VERSION: August 13, 2026

CONSULTANT: Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0003522

Date of Hearing: August 5, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 574

Author:(Umberg) – As Amended Ver:July 2, 2026

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill establishes duties governing the use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) by attorneys and arbitrators, and expands the State Bar’s alternative dispute resolution (ADR) certification program to include a complaint intake, investigation, and resolution process.

More specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits an attorney from delegating the practice of law to GenAI, and specifies that nothing in the new provisions abrogates an attorney’s duty to exercise reasonable competence and diligence.
2. Requires an attorney who uses GenAI to assist in the practice of law to refrain from entering confidential, personal identifying, or other nonpublic information into a public artificial intelligence system, as specified; to refrain from using GenAI to unlawfully discriminate against or disparately impact individuals or communities on the basis of specified protected classifications; to take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of GenAI outputs, including all case and statutory citations, correct erroneous or hallucinated output, and remove biased, offensive, or harmful content; and to disclose the use of GenAI to the court for all documents submitted to the court.
3. Prohibits a brief, pleading, motion, or other paper filed in any court from containing a citation the responsible attorney has not personally read and verified, including a citation provided by GenAI, and prohibits monetary sanctions for a violation of that prohibition from being awarded against a represented party.
4. Requires the State Bar’s ADR certification program to include procedures for the State Bar, or a professional organization approved by the State Bar, to receive, investigate, and resolve complaints that a certified firm, provider, or practitioner failed to comply with applicable ethical standards.
5. Requires certified ADR firms, providers, and practitioners, State Bar licensees, registered limited liability partnerships, and law corporations to provide all requested information, records, or communications to the State Bar or its agents in connection with a complaint proceeding, notwithstanding specified confidentiality, privilege, and work product protections, and provides that disclosure does not waive those protections.
6. Requires complaint proceedings to occur in private and remain confidential, authorizes the State Bar to publicly disclose specified nonprivileged information after a decision on a complaint, and exempts information provided under these provisions from disclosure under the California Public Records Act.
7. Prohibits a professional organization approved by the State Bar to handle complaints from being a voluntary association of attorneys.
8. Requires the Judicial Council to publicly revisit, and revise as necessary, Standard 10.80 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration to reflect the further development of GenAI.
9. Prohibits an arbitrator from delegating any part of the arbitrator’s decisionmaking process to a GenAI tool, from relying on GenAI-generated information outside the record without prior disclosure to the parties, and from assuming that sources a GenAI tool cannot independently verify exist or are accurately characterized; and requires an arbitrator to assume responsibility for all aspects of an award.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. State Bar costs of an unknown amount, but likely in excess of $150,000 annually (State Bar Funds), to administer the ADR complaint process. The State Bar estimates one to two full-time employees and one part-time supervisor would handle the entire ADR certification process, including complaint intake, investigation, and resolution, and states all costs fall within existing fee authority. Notably, that estimate covers the full certification program, which existing law already requires; only a portion is attributable to this bill. The State Bar cannot project complaint volume, citing uncertainty over how many firms and practitioners will seek certification.
2. Judicial Council costs of an unknown amount (Trial Court Trust Fund) to revisit and revise Standard 10.80.
3. Potential court cost pressures of an unknown, but potentially significant amount (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) from processing GenAI disclosures accompanying filed documents and from sanctions activity under the new citation standard.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

Artificial Intelligence and its use now permeate every industry in the U.S. Its capabilities continue to improve at an exponential rate, but it is far from perfect. We must be cautious when determining best practices for its use in high-stakes industries, including the legal profession. SB 574 protects those receiving legal services by codifying certain safeguards for the use of A.I. by attorneys and arbitrators. It also makes important technical changes to the upcoming voluntary California State Bar Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Certification program.

1. Background. GenAI in the Legal Profession. Attorneys, judicial officers, and arbitrators have adopted GenAI tools for research, drafting, and document review, including some high-profile reports of filings containing fabricated case citations. In April 2026, the State Bar instituted disciplinary charges against two attorneys who submitted false GenAI-generated content in court filings, and a third attorney agreed to a license suspension. Existing standards address the issue without statutory force: the California Rules of Professional Conduct impose duties of competence and diligence on attorneys, and Standard 10.80 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration addresses judicial officer use of GenAI. This bill converts several of those advisory standards into statutory duties and adds a citation-verification requirement. Notably, this bill defines GenAI by capability rather than use — an artificial intelligence system that “can generate” derived synthetic content. That definition likely reaches GenAI features embedded in enterprise legal research platforms, which bears on the volume of court disclosures required by this bill.

ADR certification. SB 940 (Umberg), Chapter 986, Statutes of 2024, required the State Bar to create a voluntary program certifying ADR firms, providers, and practitioners, including verification of compliance with ethical standards, tiered certification levels, and authority to deny or revoke certification. The program is fee-supported, and existing law prohibits the State Bar from using annual license fee revenue for program costs. That program does not currently include a mechanism to investigate or resolve complaints against certified neutrals. This bill supplies that mechanism and establishes related provisions governing privilege, confidentiality, and public disclosure of complaint outcomes. The program is not yet operating, so the population of certified firms and practitioners subject to the complaint process is not known.

1. Support and Opposition. This bill is supported by Oakland Privacy, SEIU California, and TechEquity Action. The American Arbitration Association (AAA) is opposed unless amended, stating that the bill “would eliminate the long-standing assurance of mediation privilege/confidentiality for parties who use a State Bar-certified mediator.” This, AAA argues, would likely result in “greatly reduced participation in the voluntary certification program by mediators.”

Analysis Prepared by: Shiran Zohar / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: July 1, 2026

Fiscal:

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 574

Author:(Umberg) – As Amended Ver:June 22, 2026

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

SENATE VOTE: 39-0

SUBJECT: Attorneys, arbitrators, judicial officers, and alternative resolution providers

SYNOPSIS

Developed and used correctly, generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has the potential to enhance the practice of law and accelerate access to justice. However, a steady stream of cases involving lawyers and judges carelessly relying on errant outputs of GenAI tools has raised major concerns for the integrity of the legal system.

This author-sponsored bill provides guidelines for the use of GenAI in the practice of law. The bill establishes various duties for attorneys in the use of GenAI, including restricting the inputting of nonpublic information into systems that allow for access by anyone not authorized by the attorney. Attorneys must take reasonable steps to verify and correct erroneous outputs, and remove biased, offensive, or harmful content. The bill also prohibits attorneys from filing documents with courts that include unverified citations provided by GenAI. As for judicial officers, the bill requires that they disclose whether they relied on GenAI in researching or drafting any legal determination. Finally, the bill generally prohibits arbitrators from delegating any part of their decision-making process to a GenAI tool.^[1]

The bill is supported by Oakland Privacy, SEIU California, and TechEquity Action. The bill is opposed by the American Arbitration Association.

This analysis is based on the bill in print. Comment #4 describes amendments agreed to in the Judiciary Committee, which will be adopted in this Committee, along with additional clarifying amendments.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires every pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper to be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s individual name, or, if the party is not represented by an attorney, by the party. (Civ. Proc. Code, §128.7.)
2. Imposes various ethical duties on courts, including to never seek to mislead a judicial officer. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068.)
3. Imposes a duty upon all attorneys in California to perform legal services with competence and reasonable diligence. (Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct, 1.1 & 1.3.)
4. Provides that a judicial officer using generative AI for any task within their adjudicative role should:
   1. Not enter confidential, personal identifying, or other nonpublic information into a public generative AI system, as specified;
   2. Not use generative AI to unlawfully discriminate against or disparately impact individuals or communities based on age, ancestry, color, ethnicity, gender, gender expression, gender identity, genetic information, marital status, medical condition, military or veteran status, national origin, physical or mental disability, political affiliation, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and any other classification protected by federal or state law;
   3. Take reasonable steps to verify that generative AI material, including any material prepared on their behalf by others, is accurate, and should take reasonable steps to correct any erroneous or hallucinated output in any material used;
   4. Take reasonable steps to remove any biased, offensive, or harmful content in any generative AI material used, including any material prepared on their behalf by others;
   5. Consider whether to disclose the use of generative AI if it is used to create content provided to the public. (Cal. Rules of Court, Standard 10.80.)
5. Governs arbitrations in California pursuant to the California Arbitration Act, including the enforcement of arbitration agreements, rules for neutral arbitrators, the conduct of arbitration proceedings, and the enforcement of arbitration awards. (Civ. Proc. Code, §1280 et seq.)
6. Requires the State Bar to create a program to certify alternative dispute resolution firms, providers, or practitioners. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6173 (a).) Authorizes the State Bar to deny or revoke certification for a failure to meet or maintain certification standards. (Id. at (b).)

THIS BILL:

1. Establishes that it is the duty of an attorney using GenAI to practice law to ensure all of the following:
   1. Confidential, personal identifying, or other nonpublic information is not entered into a public generative artificial intelligence system.
   2. The use of generative artificial intelligence does not unlawfully discriminate against or disparately impact individuals or communities based on age, ancestry, color, ethnicity, gender, gender expression, gender identity, genetic information, marital status, medical condition, military or veteran status, national origin, physical or mental disability, political affiliation, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and any other classification protected by federal or state law.
   3. Reasonable steps are taken to do all of the following:
      1. Verify the accuracy of generative artificial intelligence material, including any material prepared on their behalf by others.
      2. Correct any erroneous or hallucinated output in any material used by the attorney.
      3. Remove any biased, offensive, or harmful content in any generative artificial intelligence material used, including any material prepared on their behalf by others.
   4. The attorney considers whether to disclose the use of generative artificial intelligence if it is used to create content provided to the public.
2. Defines, for purposes of 1), the following:
   1. “Public generative artificial intelligence system” means a generative artificial intelligence system that allows anyone other than the attorney who inputted or uploaded the data to the system, or a person authorized by the attorney who inputted or uploaded the data to the system, to access that data, or a generative artificial intelligence system that uses that data to train an artificial intelligence system without authorization from the attorney.
   2. “Personal identifying information” includes all the following:
      1. Driver’s license numbers.
      2. Dates of birth.
      3. Social security numbers.
      4. National Crime Information and Criminal Identification and Information numbers.
      5. Addresses and phone numbers of parties, victims, witnesses, and court personnel.
      6. Medical or psychiatric information.
      7. Financial information.
      8. Account numbers.
      9. Any other content sealed by court order or deemed confidential by court rule or statute.
3. Requires the State Bar to adopt procedures for the State Bar or a professional organization to receive, investigate, and resolve any complaints that a certified firm, provider, or practitioner failed to comply with the applicable ethical standards of conduct, as specified. Require complaint proceedings to occur in private and be confidential. After a decision on a complaint, the bill authorizes the State Bar to publicly disclose information or records concerning complaint proceedings that do not reveal confidential or privileged communications. Exempts information, records, or communications provided under these provisions from disclosure under the Public Records Act.
4. Prohibits attorneys responsible for submitting briefs, pleadings, or any other paper filed in court from including any citations the attorney has not personally read and verified, including any citation provided by GenAI.
5. Requires judicial officers to disclose whether they or any other person involved in the process of researching or drafting any order, ruling, decision, finding, recommendation, or other determination made by that officer relied on GenAI in that process.
6. Prohibits arbitrators from:
   1. Delegating any part of their decisionmaking process to any GenAI tool.
   2. Using GenAI to replace their independent analysis of the facts, law, and evidence.
   3. Relinquishing their decisionmaking powers to GenAI and delegating any tasks to GenAI tools if such use could influence procedural or substantive decisions.
   4. Relying on information generated by GenAI outside the record without making appropriate disclosures to the parties beforehand and, as far as practical, allowing the parties to comment on its use.
   5. Assuming that sources exist or are characterized accurately when a GenAI tool cannot cite them such that they can be independently verified.
7. Requires arbitrators to assume responsibility for all aspects of an award, regardless of any use of GenAI tools to assist with the decisionmaking process.

COMMENTS:

1) Author’s statement. According to the author:

Artificial Intelligence and its use now permeate every industry in the U.S. Its capabilities continue to improve at an exponential rate, but it is far from perfect. We must be cautious when determining best practices for its use in high-stakes industries, including the legal profession. SB 574 protects those receiving legal services by codifying certain safeguards for the use of A.I. by attorneys and arbitrators. It also makes important technical changes to the upcoming voluntary California State Bar Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Certification program.

2) Background. “Artificial intelligence” refers to the mimicking of human intelligence by artificial systems, such as computers. AI uses algorithms – sets of rules – to transform inputs into outputs. Inputs and outputs can be anything a computer can process, including numbers, text, audio, video, or other data.^[2] GenAI is a subset of AI that produces outputs closely resembling human-created content.^[3]

Compared to conventional computer programs, which act according to pre-programmed rules, GenAI models “learn” from examples such as books, articles, photos, film, or music. This learning occurs within “neural networks” – massive systems of nodes linked by adjustable connections – that encode statistical patterns gleaned from data. During training, data is broken into fundamental units known as “tokens” – groups of syllables, pixels, or musical notes, for example – that can be represented numerically. A naïve neural network is exposed to an incomplete sequence of tokens and prompted to predict the next token in the sequence. If the prediction is incorrect, the network adjusts the strengths of its connections in order to minimize error and improve its next prediction. This process continues iteratively until the neural network can reliably emulate the human-created content it was trained on. A trained neural network embedded in a GenAI system is known as a “model,” and the strengths of its connections are known as its “model weights.”^[4]

Large language models such as GPT-4, the model embedded in ChatGPT 4, do not fundamentally understand the text they are producing. They calculate one token at a time – if they predict that the next word or symbol in an outputted sentence should be a period, then the sentence ends. Otherwise, the sentence continues. It is a testament to the ingenious architecture of the deep neural nets powering these systems that their outputs are remotely coherent. But while the text these systems produce is cogent, it is not always correct. “ ‘These systems live in a world of language,’ said Melanie Mitchell, an A.I. researcher at the Santa Fe Institute. ‘That world gives them some clues about what is true and what is not true, but the language they learn from is not grounded in reality. They do not necessarily know if what they are generating is true or false.’”^[5]

Thus, when a California lawyer infamously used ChatGPT to draft a brief in which 21 of 23 quotations were fabricated,^[6] the model was doing precisely what it was designed to do: draw on the patterns encoded in its weights to output a text that convincingly mimicked the countless examples of legal documents – good, bad, outdated, irrelevant – arrayed in its training data. The fake quotes were next-token predictions that looked like real quotes and cases the model had learned from. This case is far from isolated: one researcher has documented 1641 legal decisions in which GenAI produced hallucinated content – most often, fake citations.^[7]

This illustrates the folly of uncritical reliance on a general-purpose model like GPT-4 to craft highly nuanced analyses that necessitate genuine legal acumen. Although GenAI systems are highly capable and advancing rapidly – ChatGPT 4 passed a bar exam^[8] – and can use database retrieval techniques to enhance the accuracy of their answers, they are not developed for this purpose, nor trained on curated datasets that accurately reflect the state of current law. Even if they were, the tendency of GenAI systems to hallucinate makes them unsuited to practice law unsupervised. While these systems may generate outputs that have the appearance of polished questions, the outputs themselves are not fundamentally grounded in reality.

Developed and used correctly, however, GenAI has the potential to enhance the practice of law and accelerate access to justice. The practice of law can be costly, tedious, and slow, and often involves sifting through reams of documents to find relevant evidence or case authority. Certain tools can readily expedite these processes, helping overburdened lawyers and courts deliver resolutions to litigants sooner. But even with human oversight helping to screen out false positives, these systems can fail to identify key information that traditional human review would discover.^[9]

Beyond lawyers, “a growing contingent of judges are increasingly embracing AI to help them draft opinions, analyze court filings and quickly conduct legal research.”^[10] The Los Angeles County Superior Court is conducting a pilot program to test a tool created by Learned Hand. The tool uses a combination of LLMs from Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google to act as an AI clerk for judges.^[11] At least nine other states have active pilots.^[12]

Similarly, AI is being rapidly implemented in the context of arbitration:

In limited instances, AI is beginning to replace human adjudicators. The American Arbitration Association introduced an “AI Arbitrator” last year that can generate decisions in construction-related disputes. It was trained on more than 1,500 past decisions to predict how a human would have ruled.

Individuals or businesses in arbitration—a dispute process that happens outside of courtrooms—can opt to use the AI generator. The tool can generate a decision much more quickly than human arbitrators, said Bridget McCormack, the AAA’s chief executive and a former chief justice of the Michigan Supreme Court.

Since it launched, the AAA has been flooded with requests to use the tool, McCormack said.

“Courts will always and should always have humans in the loop,” McCormack said. Still, she added, for the overburdened court system, “It’s a game changer.”^[13]

3) What this bill would do. This bill establishes guidelines for attorneys, judicial officers, and arbitrators using GenAI in the practice of law.

The bill imposes various duties for attorneys, including restricting the inputting of nonpublic information into systems that allow for access by anyone not authorized by the attorney, avoiding using a GenAI system in a way that results in unlawful discrimination, and considering whether to disclose the use of GenAI in certain circumstances. Attorneys must take reasonable steps to verify and correct erroneous outputs, and remove biased, offensive, or harmful content. The bill also prohibits attorneys responsible for submitting briefs, pleadings, or any other paper filed in court from including any citations the attorney has not personally read and verified, including any citation provided by GenAI.

The bill requires judicial officers to disclose whether they or any other person involved in the process of researching or drafting any order, ruling, decision, finding, recommendation, or other determination made by that officer relied on GenAI in that process.

With respect to arbitrators, the bill generally prohibits delegating any part of their decision-making process to a GenAI tool. The bill lists specific prohibitions and requirements using various synonyms for “delegate” that generally appear to fall under this basic principle.

4) Amendments. The bill is set to be heard in the Judiciary Committee the day before it will be heard in this Committee. Amendments agreed to in that Committee, to be adopted in this Committee, include:

• Clarifying that the use of artificial intelligence is not to be construed to abrogate an attorney’s professional duty to exercise reasonable competence and diligence in the practice of law.
• Clarifying that an arbitrator’s use of artificial intelligence does not excuse their duty of competence and to make unbiased decisions.
• Requiring attorneys to verify the accuracy of all case citations.
• Requiring an attorney filing a document with the court to certify that either they, or an attorney under their supervision, have personally read all cases cited in the document.
• Revising and recasting provisions of the bill related to judicial disclosure of the use of artificial intelligence to instead require the Judicial Council of California to revisit existing Rules of Court related to judicial use of artificial intelligence (Standard 10.80) every two years.
• While maintaining the State Bar’s ability to certify an organization to conduct oversight of complaints against arbitrators, to avoid any potential for bias, clarifying that the organization cannot be a voluntary association of attorneys.

The author has also agreed to amend the bill to make additional clarifying and conforming changes.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Oakland Privacy writes:

Senate Bill 574 proposes some modest baseline standards for a set of problems that seem to be considerably ramping up in frequency and for which remedies and standing expectations have been somewhat unclear.

The first standard established by the bill is to prevent the entry of several kinds of personal information about plaintiffs, defendants, witnesses or other individuals involved in a lawsuit into a public generative AI system like Chat GPT, Gemini, Claude or many others. The set of personal information data points includes identifying numbers including drivers licenses, SS#, DOB, addresses and phone numbers as well as NCIC ID’s and medical, psychiatric and financial information. The bill includes a useful clause that allows additional data points that may be deemed confidential by court or statute, which makes the law adaptable to changing norms.

This clause is consistent with existing privacy laws in that it makes clear that attorney-client privilege does not extend as far as converting personal information into publicly available information that can be repurposed in multiple ways. We agree that consent or the lack thereof is somewhat irrelevant in this situation, as individuals involved in a lawsuit are under some level of relative coercion due to circumstances, and public generative AI systems can be used in many different ways by absolutely anyone.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The American Arbitration Association writes:

As background, the AAA has taken a leadership role in promoting the responsible and ethical use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the field of arbitration. Last year, we developed and published “AAAi Standards for AI in ADR” (copy attached), which provides a comprehensive framework for the use of AI in the ADR field, focusing on six key areas: (i) Ethical & Human-Centered Values; (ii) Privacy & Security; (iii) Accuracy & Reliability; (iv) Explainability & Transparency; (v) Accountability; and (vi) Adaptability. Several elements of the AAAi Standards for AI align with the objectives of SB 574. The AAAi Standards also delineate the six key areas for the different roles involved in ADR: ADR administrators, neutrals (arbitrators and mediators), and advocates.

The AAA has also developed guidance for our arbitrators in their use of AI tools (copy attached), encouraging them to use this technology to streamline tasks and improve work quality while adhering to their professional obligations under applicable state rules, the Code of Ethics for Arbitrators in Commercial Disputes, the Code of Professional Responsibility for Arbitrators of Labor-Management Disputes, and other relevant requirements to ensure fairness, integrity, and confidentiality in arbitration.

Thoughtful calibration is essential to ensure that well-intentioned safeguards, such as those in SB 574, do not inadvertently impede innovation or the responsible adoption of new technologies that serve parties and the arbitration process.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Oakland Privacy
SEIU California
TechEquity Action

Oppose Unless Amended

American Arbitration Association

Analysis Prepared by: Josh Tosney / P. & C.P. / (916) 319-2200

1. The bill contains other provisions relating to arbitration, but they are not outside of this Committee’s jurisdiction. ↑

2. AB 2885 (Bauer-Kahan & Umberg; Ch. 843, Stats. 2024) defined AI as “an engineered or machine-based system that varies in its level of autonomy and that can, for explicit or implicit objectives, infer from the input it receives how to generate outputs that can influence physical or virtual environments.” ↑

3. AB 2013 (Irwin, Ch. 817, Stats. 2024) defined GenAI as “artificial intelligence that can generate derived synthetic content, such as text, images, video, and audio, that emulates the structure and characteristics of the artificial intelligence’s training data.” ↑

4. IBM, What is generative AI?, https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/generative-ai; IBM, What is machine learning?, www.ibm.com/topics/machine-learning. ↑

5. Cade Metz, “What Makes A.I. Chatbots Go Wrong?,” New York Times, March 29, 2023, www.nytimes.com/2023/03/29/technology/ai-chatbots-hallucinations.html. ↑

6. Khari Johnson, “California issues historic fine over lawyer’s ChatGPT fabrications” CalMatters (Sep. 22, 2025), https://calmatters.org/economy/technology/2025/09/chatgpt-lawyer-fine-ai-regulation/. ↑

7. Damien Charlotin, AI Hallucination Cases, https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/. ↑

8. Pablo Arrendo, “GPT-4 Passes the Bar Exam: What That Means for Artificial Intelligence Tools in the Legal Profession,” Stanford Law School Blog (April 19, 2023), https://law.stanford.edu/2023/04/19/gpt-4-passes-the-bar-exam-what-that-means-for-artificial-intelligence-tools-in-the-legal-industry/. ↑

9. David Shargel, “Avoiding risk: AI's double-edged role in e-discovery,” Reuters (Oct. 8, 2025), https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/avoiding-risk-ais-double-edged-role-e-discovery--pracin-2025-10-08/. ↑

10. Erin Mulvaney, “How Judges Are Using AI to Help Decide Your Legal Dispute” The Wall Street Journal (Jan. 6, 2026), https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/how-ai-could-help-decide-your-next-legal-dispute-9cb12517?mod=tech_lead_pos1. ↑

11. California judges are testing a new AI clerk, and you won’t know if it’s looking at your case, (May 26, 2026), https://calmatters.org/economy/technology/2026/05/ai-los-angeles-riverside-courts/. ↑

12. Erin Mulvaney, “How Judges Are Using AI to Help Decide Your Legal Dispute” The Wall Street Journal (Jan. 6, 2026), https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/how-ai-could-help-decide-your-next-legal-dispute-9cb12517?mod=tech_lead_pos1. ↑

13. Erin Mulvaney, “How Judges Are Using AI to Help Decide Your Legal Dispute” The Wall Street Journal (Jan. 6, 2026), https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/how-ai-could-help-decide-your-next-legal-dispute-9cb12517?mod=tech_lead_pos1. ↑

Date of Hearing: June 30, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Ash Kalra, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 574

Author:(Umberg) – As Amended Ver:June 22, 2026

SENATE VOTE: 39-0

SUBJECT: Attorneys, arbitrators, judicial officers, and alternative resolution providerS

SYNOPSIS

As with many sectors of the American economy, the use of artificial intelligence is expanding rapidly in the legal profession. From attorneys, to judges, to arbitrators, artificial intelligence presents the opportunity to introduce meaningful efficiencies across the legal sector. However, there are growing concerns about the technology’s impact on the integrity of the legal system. In the last year there have been several cases in which attorneys provided incorrect or outright false citations in documents provided to the courts generated using artificial intelligence. Similarly, arbitration firms now have the tools to permit artificial intelligence to adjudicate cases in the place of a trained human neutral party. While artificial intelligence may provide for efficiencies, when used improperly it is the litigants who suffer.

Seeking to ensure that artificial intelligence does not undermine the integrity of the legal system this bill adopts a series of standards for the use of artificial intelligence by attorneys, judges, and arbitrators. The bill generally aims to protect privileged information from being submitted to artificial intelligence systems, ensure that artificial intelligence does not override a legal professional’s ethical duty of competence and reasonable diligence, and prevents artificial intelligence from rendering decisions in legal cases. The bill also aims to strengthen the enforcement powers of the State Bar’s arbitration certification program.

This measure is supported by several organizations seeking to prevent the worst excesses of artificial intelligence from harming society. The proponents of this bill argue its provisions will ensure that artificial intelligence does not harm clients and does not supplant the ethical obligations of legal professionals. The bill is opposed by the American Arbitration Association who believe the provisions related to arbitration and artificial intelligence need clarity and seek liability protections should an arbitrator use artificial intelligence. Should this bill be approved by this Committee it will be heard by the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection, which maintains primary jurisdiction over all areas of artificial intelligence regulation. Due to impending legislative deadlines, several amendments proposed by this Committee must be adopted in the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. Although not reflected in the summary, as this bill will not be amended in this Committee, they are discussed in the analysis.

SUMMARY: Provides guidelines for the use of generative artificial intelligence in the practice of law and modifies the existing mandate that the State Bar adopt a program to certify alternative resolution firms, providers, or practitioners. Specifically, this bill:

1. Provides that it is the duty of an attorney using generative artificial intelligence to practice law to ensure all the following:
   1. Confidential, personal identifying, or other nonpublic information is not entered into a public generative artificial intelligence system;
   2. The use of generative artificial intelligence does not unlawfully discriminate against or disparately impact individuals or communities based on age, ancestry, color, ethnicity, gender, gender expression, gender identity, genetic information, marital status, medical condition, military or veteran status, national origin, physical or mental disability, political affiliation, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and any other classification protected by federal or state law;
   3. Take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of generative artificial materials, as specified;
   4. The attorney considers whether to disclose the use of generative artificial intelligence if it is used to create content provided to the public.
2. Requires a judicial officer, whether in a civil or criminal matter, to disclose whether they or any other person involved in the process of researching or drafting any order, ruling, decision, finding, recommendation, or other determination made by that officer relied on generative artificial intelligence in that process.
3. Prohibits an arbitrator from delegating any part of their decision making process to any generative artificial intelligence tool.
4. Provides that the use of generative artificial intelligence tools by arbitrators cannot replace their independent analysis of the facts, the law, and the evidence.
5. Prohibits an arbitrator from relinquishing their decision making powers to generative artificial intelligence and to avoid delegating any tasks to generative artificial intelligence tools if such use could influence procedural or substantive decisions.
6. Prohibits an arbitrator from relying on information generated by generative artificial intelligence outside the record without making appropriate disclosures to the parties beforehand and, as far as practical, allowing the parties to comment on its use, as specified.
7. Requires an arbitrator to take responsibility for all aspects of an award, regardless of any use of generative artificial intelligence tools to assist with the decision making process.
8. Defines “generative artificial intelligence” means 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.
9. Authorizes, as a part of the State Bar’s certification program for dispute resolution firms, providers, or practitioners, the State Bar or a professional organization approved by the State Bar to receive, investigate, and resolve any complaints that a certified firm, provider, or practitioner failed to comply with the applicable ethical standards of conduct.
10. Provides that notwithstanding privilege laws, alternative dispute resolution firms, providers, or practitioners certified by the State Bar, licensees of the State Bar, limited liability partnerships, or law corporations registered with the State Bar are to, pursuant to a request made as part of a procedure to address a complaint that a firm, provider, or practitioner violated applicable ethical standards, provide to the State Bar or its agents all requested information, records, or communications.
11. Provides that providing the State Bar the information specified in 10) does not violate, waive, or extinguish the duty to maintain the confidence of the information, records, or communications.
12. Provides that all arbitrator complaint proceedings are to occur in private and be kept confidential.
13. Permits, after a decision regarding a complaint against an arbitrator, the State Bar publicly disclose information or records concerning the complaint proceeding that do not reveal any confidential or privileged communications, including the name of a certified firm, provider, or practitioner that has been found to have violated an applicable ethical standard, any action that has been taken to remedy the violation, and the general basis on which the action was taken.
14. Exempts records provided to the State Bar for the purpose of adjudicating a complaint against an arbitrator from disclosure pursuant to the California Public Record Act.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires every pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper to be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s individual name, or, if the party is not represented by an attorney, by the party. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.7.)
2. Provides that it is the duty of an attorney licensed in this state to do, among other requirements, the following:
   1. To maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers;
   2. To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to them those means only as are consistent with truth, and never to seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law;
   3. To advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which they are charged;
   4. To respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of clients and to keep clients reasonably informed of significant developments in matters with regard to which the attorney has agreed to provide legal services. (Business and Professions Code Section 6068.)
3. Imposes a duty upon all attorneys in California to perform legal services with competence and reasonable diligence. (California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 1.1 & 1.3.)
4. Provides that a judicial officer using generative AI for any task within their adjudicative role:
   1. Should not enter confidential, personal identifying, or other nonpublic information into a public generative AI system, as specified;
   2. Should not use generative AI to unlawfully discriminate against or disparately impact individuals or communities based on age, ancestry, color, ethnicity, gender, gender expression, gender identity, genetic information, marital status, medical condition, military or veteran status, national origin, physical or mental disability, political affiliation, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and any other classification protected by federal or state law;
   3. Should take reasonable steps to verify that generative AI material, including any material prepared on their behalf by others, is accurate, and should take reasonable steps to correct any erroneous or hallucinated output in any material used;
   4. Should take reasonable steps to remove any biased, offensive, or harmful content in any generative AI material used, including any material prepared on their behalf by others;
   5. Should consider whether to disclose the use of generative AI if it is used to create content provided to the public. (California Rules of Court, Standard 10.80.)
5. Governs arbitrations in California pursuant to the California Arbitration Act, including the enforcement of arbitration agreements, rules for neutral arbitrators, the conduct of arbitration proceedings, and the enforcement of arbitration awards. (Code of Civil Procedure 1280 et seq.)
6. Requires the State Bar to create a program to certify alternative dispute resolution firms, providers, or practitioners. (Business and Professions Code Section 6173 (a).)
7. Requires the program specified in 6) to include the following:
   1. Procedures established by the State Bar for a firm, provider, or practitioner to become a certified alternative dispute resolution firm, provider, or practitioner that requires the firm, provider, or practitioner verify compliance with various ethical standards, as specified;
   2. Different levels or tiers for certification, as specified; and
   3. Authority for the State Bar to deny or revoke certification for a failure to meet or maintain certification standards. (Business and Professions Code Section 6173 (b).)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed non-fiscal.

COMMENTS: Generative artificial intelligence has the potential to streamline work and boost productivity across a range of industries. The legal field is no different. However, in recent years a series of embarrassing stories have emerged whereby attorneys utilizing generative artificial intelligence have not checked the technology’s work and submitted documents to the court that are replete with errors or outright incorrect case citations. Although many of the attorneys committing these mistakes have been heavily sanctioned, their clients still suffer the result of bad legal representation. Similarly, a growing fear within the legal community is the use of artificial intelligence in rendering legal decisions by both judges and arbitrators. This bill aims to deploy statutory rules governing the use of generative artificial intelligence in the legal system. In support of the bill the author states:

Artificial Intelligence and its use now permeate every industry in the U.S. Its capabilities continue to improve at an exponential rate, but it is far from perfect. We must be cautious when determining best practices for its use in high-stakes industries, including the legal profession. SB 574 protects those receiving legal services by codifying certain safeguards for the use of A.I. by attorneys and arbitrators.

The growing use of artificial intelligence in the legal field. Like many sectors of the American economy, legal practitioners see potential efficiencies from using generative artificial intelligence. From drafting simple briefs to synthesizing large volumes of case research, artificial intelligence can eliminate hours of painstaking work for attorneys. Similarly, judges and arbitrators can use artificial intelligence tools to assist in research and drafting judgements, minute orders, and other legal findings. Beyond assisting in drafting legal rulings, last fall the American Arbitration Association–International Centre for Dispute Resolution announced it had developed an artificial intelligence tool that could resolve actual cases between two parties and generate the documents related with a decision so long as both parties opted in to its use. (AAA-ICDR® to Launch AI-Native Arbitrator, Transforming Dispute Resolution, Amer. Arbitration Assn., (Sept. 17, 2025), https://www.adr.org/press-releases/aaa-icdr-to-launch-ai-native-arbitrator-transforming-dispute-resolution/.)

Despite the efficiencies gained by the use of artificial intelligence, recent examples have demonstrated that the technology is no supplement for the training, judgment, and actual work of attorneys. In April, the State Bar instituted disciplinary actions against two attorneys that submitted false, artificial intelligence-generated content in court filings. (California Courts Newsroom, Two Attorneys Face Disciplinary Charges, Third Agrees to License Suspension for AI Misuse, Judicial Council of California (Apr. 13, 2026) available at: https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/two-attorneys-face-disciplinary-charges-third-agrees-license-suspension-ai-misuse.) Although not in California, earlier this month, a federal judge in Mississippi was forced to cancel a civil trial and fined attorneys on both sides of the dispute when it was determined that counsel for both the plaintiff and defendant submitted briefs with fake case citations as a result of outsourcing work to artificial intelligence. (Neil Vigdor, Judge Punishes 4 Lawyers After Catching Both Sides Using A.I. in Lawsuit, New York Times (June 9, 2026) available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/09/us/ai-lawyers-sanctioned-mississippi.html.)

Although both the Judicial Council and the State Bar have adopted, and continue to refine, rules governing the use of artificial intelligence in the legal profession, cases like those mentioned above continue to occur with frightening regularity. Accordingly, the author of this bill contends that statutory guidance is necessary to regulate the use of artificial intelligence in the legal industry.

This bill seeks to provide guidance on the use of artificial intelligence by legal professionals. This bill, as currently in print, seeks to address the growing use of artificial intelligence in the legal industry. The bill requires attorneys using artificial intelligence to ensure that no privileged or personal information is submitted to an artificial intelligence system, requires the attorney to check the work of the artificial intelligence system, and to ensure that any outputs from the artificial intelligence system do not introduce biased, offensive, or harmful content into materials being submitted to the court. The bill requires attorneys submitting materials to a court to attest that they actually read the cases they cite in the document, presumably preventing the filing of documents citing non-existent cases. The bill also seeks to ensure that artificial intelligence systems are not being used by arbitration service providers to make the actual judgment in the case. Similarly, as currently in print, the bill would require a judicial officer to disclose whether they or any other person involved in the process of researching or drafting any order, ruling, decision, finding, recommendation, or other determination made by that officer relied on generative artificial intelligence in that process. The bill also adopts several definitions related to artificial intelligence.

This bill modifies the State Bar’s arbitration certification programs to address complaint adjudication. In addition to regulating the use of artificial intelligence, this bill also builds upon the author’s prior efforts to certify and regulate arbitration providers in California. In 2024, the author successfully passed legislation tasking the State Bar with developing a certification program for arbitration firms, providers, and practitioners. (SB 940 (Umberg) Chap. 986, Stats. 2024.) Although that bill laid out the certification program it lacked any meaningful enforcement mechanism or ability to investigate complaints against arbitrators.

As the use of artificial intelligence by arbitrators grows, the author is now seeking to add a complaint process whereby parties who believe they have been aggrieved by an arbitrator may seek a venue for their grievances. Although driven by some arbitration providers developing artificial intelligence tools that may serve as the actual arbitrator, the complaint process would apply to all arbitrators – human and computer. The bill tasks the State Bar, or a professional organization certified by the State Bar, with serving as a body adjudicating complaints. The bill then adopts several provisions to protect privileged information from public disclosure while ensuring it can be evaluated during the review of a complaint. The bill states that the State Bar may announce the outcome of its complaint, but much like investigations into attorneys, the disclosure cannot occur when the complaint review is pending.

Proposed amendments to this measure will be adopted in the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. This bill has been doubled referred to the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. Due to pending legislative deadlines, all amendments to this bill must be adopted by that Committee. Although this bill will be heard as it currently stands in print, the author has agreed to several amendments within the jurisdiction of this Committee. Those amendments include:

• Clarifying that the use of artificial intelligence is not to be construed to abrogate an attorney’s professional duty to exercise reasonable competence and diligence in the practice of law.
• Clarifying that an arbitrator’s use of artificial intelligence does not excuse their duty of competence and to make unbiased decisions.
• Requiring attorneys to verify the accuracy of all case citations.
• Requiring an attorney filing a document with the court to certify that either they, or an attorney under their supervision, have personally read all cases cited in the document.
• Revises and recasts provisions of the bill related to judicial disclosure of the use of artificial intelligence to instead require the Judicial Council of California to revisit existing Rules of Court related to judicial use of artificial intelligence (Standard 10.80) every two years.
• While maintaining the State Bar’s ability to certify an organization to conduct oversight of complaints against arbitrators, to avoid any potential for bias, clarifies that the organization cannot be a voluntary association of attorneys.

As of the date of the publication of this analysis, additional amendments are being discussed between the author and the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. These amendments appear related to definitions and other technical concerns related to artificial intelligence systems and do not directly implicate the obligations of legal professionals within the jurisdiction of this Committee. As that Committee will formally adopt the amendments, the final amendments will be discussed in totality in that Committee’s analysis of this bill.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: This bill is supported by several organizations seeking to mitigate the worst potential impacts of artificial intelligence technology. In support of the bill, Oakland Privacy writes:

Senate Bill 574 proposes some modest baseline standards for a set of problems that seem to be considerably ramping up in frequency and for which remedies and standing expectations have been somewhat unclear.

The first standard established by the bill is to prevent the entry of several kinds of personal information about plaintiffs, defendants, witnesses or other individuals involved in a lawsuit into a public generative AI system like Chat GPT, Gemini, Claude or many others. The set of personal information data points includes identifying numbers including drivers licenses, SS#, DOB, addresses and phone numbers as well as NCIC ID’s and medical, psychiatric and financial information. The bill includes a useful clause that allows additional data points that may be deemed confidential by court or statute, which makes the law adaptable to changing norms.

This clause is consistent with existing privacy laws in that it makes clear that attorney-client privilege does not extend as far as converting personal information into publicly available information that can be repurposed in multiple ways. We agree that consent or the lack thereof is somewhat irrelevant in this situation, as individuals involved in a lawsuit are under some level of relative coercion due to circumstances, and public generative AI systems can be used in many different ways by absolutely anyone.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The bill is opposed by the American Arbitration Association. They write:

As background, the AAA has taken a leadership role in promoting the responsible and ethical use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the field of arbitration. Last year, we developed and published “AAAi Standards for AI in ADR” (copy attached), which provides a comprehensive framework for the use of AI in the ADR field, focusing on six key areas: (i) Ethical & Human-Centered Values; (ii) Privacy & Security; (iii) Accuracy & Reliability; (iv) Explainability & Transparency; (v) Accountability; and (vi) Adaptability. Several elements of the AAAi Standards for AI align with the objectives of SB 574. The AAAi Standards also delineate the six key areas for the different roles involved in ADR: ADR administrators, neutrals (arbitrators and mediators), and advocates.

The AAA has also developed guidance for our arbitrators in their use of AI tools (copy attached), encouraging them to use this technology to streamline tasks and improve work quality while adhering to their professional obligations under applicable state rules, the Code of Ethics for Arbitrators in Commercial Disputes, the Code of Professional Responsibility for Arbitrators of Labor-Management Disputes, and other relevant requirements to ensure fairness, integrity, and confidentiality in arbitration.

Thoughtful calibration is essential to ensure that well-intentioned safeguards, such as those in SB 574, do not inadvertently impede innovation or the responsible adoption of new technologies that serve parties and the arbitration process.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Oakland Privacy
SEIU California
Techequity Action

Opposition

American Arbitration Association

Analysis Prepared by: Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 574

Author: Umberg (D)

Amended: 1/5/26

Vote: 21

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 13-0, 1/13/26

AYES: Umberg, Niello, Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Reyes, Stern, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 1/22/26

AYES: Caballero, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Dahle, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

SUBJECT: Generative artificial intelligence: attorneys and arbitrators

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill provides guidelines for the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) by attorneys and arbitrators.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires every pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper to be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s individual name, or, if the party is not represented by an attorney, by the party. (Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7.)
2. Provides that by presenting to the court, whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating, a pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, all of the following conditions are met:
   1. it is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;
   2. the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;
   3. the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
   4. the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief. (Ibid.)
3. Requires all attorneys who practice law in California to be licensed by the State Bar and establishes the State Bar, within the judicial branch of state government, for the purpose of regulating the legal profession. (California Constitution, article (art.) VI, § 9; Business & Professions Code §§ 6000 et seq.)
4. Governs arbitrations in California pursuant to the California Arbitration Act (CAA), including the enforcement of arbitration agreements, rules for neutral arbitrators, the conduct of arbitration proceedings, and the enforcement of arbitration awards. (Code of Civil (Civ.) Procedure (Proc.) § 1280 et. seq.)

This bill:

1. States it is the duty of an attorney using generative AI to practice law to ensure all the following listed below.
   1. Confidential, personal identifying, or other nonpublic information is not entered into a public generative AI system.
   2. The use of generative AI does not unlawfully discriminate against or disparately impact individuals or communities based on age, ancestry, color, ethnicity, gender, gender expression, gender identity, genetic information, marital status, medical condition, military or veteran status, national origin, physical or mental disability, political affiliation, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and any other classification protected by federal or state law.
   3. Reasonable steps are taken to do all of the following:
      1. verify the accuracy of generative AI material, including any material prepared on their behalf by others;
      2. correct any erroneous or hallucinated output in any material used by the attorney;
      3. remove any biased, offensive, or harmful content in any generative AI material used, including any material prepared on their behalf by others;
      4. the attorney considers whether to disclose the use of generative AI if it is used to create content provided to the public.
2. Prohibits a brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court from containing any citations that the attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally read and verified, including any citation provided by generative AI.
3. Prohibits an arbitrator from delegating any part of their decision-making process to any generative AI tool.
4. Prohibits the use of generative AI tools by arbitrators from replacing their independent analysis of the facts, the law, and the evidence.
5. Prohibits an arbitrator from relinquishing their decision-making powers to generative AI and delegating any tasks to generative AI tools if such use could influence procedural or substantive decisions.
6. Prohibits an arbitrator from relying on information generated by generative AI outside the record without making appropriate disclosures to the parties beforehand and, as far as practical, allowing the parties to comment on its use.
   1. If a generative AI tool cannot cite sources that can be independently verified, an arbitrator shall not assume that such sources exist or are characterized accurately.
   2. An arbitrator assumes responsibility for all aspects of an award, regardless of any use of generative AI tools to assist with the decision-making process.
7. Defines “generative artificial intelligence” means an AI 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.

Comments

The California State Bar’s Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct released guidance on the use of generative AI noting that:

Generative AI use presents unique challenges; it uses large volumes of data, there are many competing AI models and products, and, even for those who create generative AI products, there is a lack of clarity as to how it works. In addition, generative AI poses the risk of encouraging greater reliance and trust on its outputs because of its purpose to generate responses and its ability to do so in a manner that projects confidence and effectively emulates human responses. A lawyer should consider these and other risks before using generative AI in providing legal services.^[1]

Recently, an attorney was fined $10,000 for filing a state court appeal full of fake quotations generated by the AI tool ChatGPT. The Court of Appeal noted that “nearly all of the quotations in plaintiff's opening brief, and many of the quotations in plaintiff's reply brief, have been fabricated.”^[2] The opinion further elucidated that the attorney of record admitted he used AI to “support citation of legal issues” and that the “fabricated quotes were AI-generated. He further asserted that he had not been aware that generative AI frequently fabricates or hallucinates legal sources and, thus, he did not ‘manually verify [the quotations] against more reliable sources.”^[3] The court of appeal published the opinion as a warning to the legal community writing “[s]imply stated, no brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court should contain any citations—whether provided by generative AI or any other source—that the attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally read and verified.”^[4]

The American Arbitration Association–International Centre for Dispute Resolution (AAA-ICDR) announced in September of 2025 that it was releasing an AI arbitrator to resolve actual cases for two-party, documents only construction cases where both parties opted in to its use.^[5] The AA-ICDR websites states:

the AI arbitrator was trained on actual arbitrator reasoning from AAA-ICDR construction cases and calibrated and trained with human arbitrator input. With each step of the dispute resolution process, the AI arbitrator will evaluate the merits of claims, generate explainable recommendations, and prepare draft awards that will be benchmarked to maintain alignment with expert human legal judgment. A human-in-the-loop framework embeds human arbitrators to review reasoning, evaluate and, if needed, revise AI-driven outcomes before a decision is finalized, and validate results, safeguarding trust, transparency, and due process.^[6]

The California Rules of Court Standard 10.80 prescribe rules for the use of generative AI for any task with an adjudicative role. These include:

• not entering confidential, personal identifying, or other nonpublic information into a public generative AI system;
• not using generative AI to unlawfully discriminate against or disparately impact individuals or communities based on certain protected classifications;
• taking reasonable steps to remove any biased, offensive, or harmful content in any generative AI material used, including any material prepared on their behalf by others; and
• considering whether to disclose the use of generative AI if it is used to create content provided to the public.

This bill seeks to provide basic guidelines for the use of generative AI by attorneys and arbitrators by modeling its provisions off the California Rules of Court Standard 10.80 and the ruling in Noland regarding verifying cases and citations used in documents submitted to the courts.

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) was enacted by the U. S. Congress in 1925 in response to widespread judicial hostility to arbitration agreements. Section 2 of the FAA generally provides that a written provision in any contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract. (See 9 United States Code Section 2; similar language is contained within the California Arbitration Act at Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.)

The concept of preemption derives from the “supremacy clause” of the federal Constitution, which provides that the laws of the United States “shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Courts have typically identified three circumstances in which federal preemption of state law occurs:

(1) express preemption, where Congress explicitly defines the extent to which its enactments preempt state law; (2) field preemption, where state law attempts to regulate conduct in a field that Congress intended the federal law exclusively to occupy; and (3) conflict preemption, where it is impossible to comply with both state and federal requirements, or where state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purpose and objectives of Congress.

In assessing whether a state law is preempted by the FAA, three key aspects of the law surrounding arbitration and preemption are especially relevant. First, the federal courts have ruled that the FAA was intended to promote arbitration. Second, state laws or rules that interfere with the enforcement of arbitration agreements are preempted, except on such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract. Third, state laws that explicitly or covertly discriminate against arbitration agreements as compared to other contracts are also preempted. As this bill is not affecting the arbitration of claims but providing guideline for the use of generative AI in arbitration, it should not run afoul of the FAA.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

The Senate Appropriations Committee writes:

• Unknown, potential costs pressures to the state funded trial court system (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund), may lead to additional filings that otherwise would not have been commenced (such as motions against attorneys for prohibited AI-related conduct, evidentiary disputes, or sanctions proceedings) and could lead to lengthier and more complex court proceedings with attendant workload and resource costs to the court. The fiscal impact of this bill to the courts will depend on many unknowns, including the number of filings and the factors unique to each case. An eight-hour court day costs approximately $10,500 in staff in workload. This is a conservative estimate, based on the hourly rate of court personnel including at minimum the judge, clerk, bailiff, court reporter, jury administrator, administrative staff, and jury per-diems. If court days exceed 10, costs to the trial courts could reach hundreds of thousands of dollars. While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to fund additional staff and resources and to increase the amount appropriated to backfill for trial court operations.
  
• Unknown, potential costs pressures to state and local agencies employing attorneys, including the Department of Justice, to litigate motions regarding use of generative AI tools, and to ensure compliance with confidentiality and nondiscrimination requirements when AI tools are used.

SUPPORT: (Verified 1/22/26)

Oakland Privacy

OPPOSITION: (Verified 1/22/26)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The author writes:

Artificial Intelligence and its use now permeate every industry in the U.S. Its capabilities continue to improve at an exponential rate, but it is far from perfect. We must be cautious when determining best practices for its use in high-stakes industries, including the legal profession. SB 574 protects those receiving legal services by codifying certain safeguards for the use of A.I. by attorneys and arbitrators.

Oakland Privacy writes in support stating:

Oakland Privacy writes to offer our support to Senate Bill 574. The bill would prevent attorneys from entering the personal information of clients or other individuals into a public generative AI system, require all citations in a legal filing, including those generated by an AI system, to be personally verified by the filing attorney, and limits the role of artificial intelligence programs in arbitration decisions. […]

Prepared by: Amanda Mattson / JUD. / (916) 651-4113

1/23/26 15:39:13

**** END ****

1. State Bar of Cal. Standing Comm. on Prof. Responsibility and Conduct, Practical Guidance for the use if Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law, available at https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/ethics/Generative-AI-Practical-Guidance.pdf. ↑

2. Noland v. Land of the Free (2025) 114 Cal.App.5^th 426 at 435. ↑

3. Id. at 441. ↑

4. Id. at 430. ↑

5. AAA-ICDR® to Launch AI-Native Arbitrator, Transforming Dispute Resolution, Amer. Arbitration Assn., (Sept. 17, 2025), https://www.adr.org/press-releases/aaa-icdr-to-launch-ai-native-arbitrator-transforming-dispute-resolution/. ↑

6. Ibid. ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

SB 574 (Umberg) - Generative artificial intelligence: attorneys and arbitrators

Bill Summary:

SB 574 would establish guidelines for the use of generative artificial intelligence by attorneys and arbitrators.

Fiscal Impact:

• Unknown, potential costs pressures to the state funded trial court system (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund), may lead to additional filings that otherwise would not have been commenced (such as motions against attorneys for prohibited AI-related conduct, evidentiary disputes, or sanctions proceedings) and could lead to lengthier and more complex court proceedings with attendant workload and resource costs to the court. The fiscal impact of this bill to the courts will depend on many unknowns, including the number of filings and the factors unique to each case. An eight-hour court day costs approximately $10,500 in staff in workload. This is a conservative estimate, based on the hourly rate of court personnel including at minimum the judge, clerk, bailiff, court reporter, jury administrator, administrative staff, and jury per-diems. If court days exceed 10, costs to the trial courts could reach hundreds of thousands of dollars. While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to fund additional staff and resources and to increase the amount appropriated to backfill for trial court operations.
  
• Unknown, potential costs pressures to state and local agencies employing attorneys, including the Department of Justice, to litigate motions regarding use of generative AI tools, and to ensure compliance with confidentiality and nondiscrimination requirements when AI tools are used.

Background: The California State Bar’s Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct recently released guidance on the use of generative AI noting that:

Generative AI use presents unique challenges; it uses large volumes of data, there are many competing AI models and products, and, even for those who create generative AI products, there is a lack of clarity as to how it works. In addition, generative AI poses the risk of encouraging greater reliance and trust on its outputs because of its purpose to generate responses and its ability to do so in a manner that projects confidence and effectively emulates human responses. A lawyer should consider these and other risks before using generative AI in providing legal services.

The intent of this bill is to codify safeguards for the use of AI by attorneys and arbitrators.

Proposed Law:

• Provides that it is the duty of an attorney using generative AI to practice law to ensure all the following:
  • Confidential, personal identifying, or other nonpublic information is not entered into a public generative artificial intelligence system;
  • The use of generative AI does not unlawfully discriminate against or disparately impact individuals or communities based on age, ancestry, color, ethnicity, gender, gender expression, gender identity, genetic information, marital status, medical condition, military or veteran status, national origin, physical or mental disability, political affiliation, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and any other classification protected by federal or state law;
  • Reasonable steps are taken to do all the following:
    • Verify the accuracy of generative artificial intelligence material, including any material prepared on their behalf by others;
    • Correct any erroneous or hallucinated output in any material used by the attorney;
    • Remove any biased, offensive, or harmful content in any generative AI material used, including any material prepared on their behalf by others; and,
  • The attorney considers whether to disclose the use of generative AI if it is used to create content provided to the public.
• Provides 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 pleading has not personally read and verified, including any citation provided by generative AI.
• Prohibits an arbitrator from delegating any part of their decision-making process to any generative AI tool.
• Provides that the use of generative AI tools by arbitrators shall not replace their independent analysis of the facts, the law, and the evidence.
• Prohibits an arbitrator from relinquishing their decision-making powers to generative AI.
• States that an arbitrator shall avoid delegating any tasks to generative AI tools if such use could influence procedural or substantive decisions.
• Provides that an arbitrator shall not rely on information generated by generative AI outside the record without making appropriate disclosures to the parties beforehand and, as far as practical, allowing the parties to comment on its use.
• Provides that, if a generative AI tool cannot cite sources that can be independently verified, an arbitrator shall not assume that such sources exist or are characterized accurately.
• Requires an arbitrator to assume responsibility for all aspects of an award, regardless of any use of generative AI tools to assist with the decision-making process.

-- END --

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2025-2026 Regular Session

Bill No: SB 574 (Author:Umberg)

Version: January 5, 2026

Hearing Date: January 13, 2026

Fiscal: No

Urgency: No

Consultant: AM

SUBJECT

Generative artificial intelligence: attorneys and arbitrators

DIGEST

This bill seeks to provide guidelines for the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) by attorneys and arbitrators.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The powerful benefits and existential risks of AI technology is well documented. Artificial intelligence” refers to the mimicking of human intelligence by artificial systems, such as computers. AI uses algorithms – sets of rules – to transform inputs into outputs. Inputs and outputs can be anything a computer can process: numbers, text, audio, video, or other data. GenAI is a subset of AI that can produce outputs that closely resemble human created content. AB 2013 (Irwin, Ch. 817, Stats. 2024) defined GenAI as “artificial intelligence that can generate derived synthetic content, such as text, images, video, and audio, that emulates the structure and characteristics of the artificial intelligence’s training data.” This bill seeks to enact basic guidelines for the use of generative AI by attorneys and arbitrators. The bill is author sponsored and supported by Oakland Privacy. There is no known opposition.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Requires every pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper to be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s individual name, or, if the party is not represented by an attorney, by the party. (Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7.)
2. Provides that by presenting to the court, whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating, a pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, all of the following conditions are met:
   1. it is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;
   2. the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;
   3. the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
   4. the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief. (Ibid.)
3. Requires all attorneys who practice law in California to be licensed by the State Bar and establishes the State Bar, within the judicial branch of state government, for the purpose of regulating the legal profession. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 9; Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 6000 et seq.)
4. Provides that protection of the public, which includes support for greater access to, and inclusion in, the legal system, shall be the highest priority for the State Bar in exercising their licensing, regulatory, and disciplinary functions. Whenever the protection of the public is inconsistent with other interests sought to be promoted, the protection of the public shall be paramount. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6001.1.)
5. Governs arbitrations in California pursuant to the California Arbitration Act (CAA), including the enforcement of arbitration agreements, rules for neutral arbitrators, the conduct of arbitration proceedings, and the enforcement of arbitration awards. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1280 et. seq.)

This bill:

1. States it is the duty of an attorney using generative artificial intelligence to practice law to ensure all the following listed below.
   1. Confidential, personal identifying, or other nonpublic information is not entered into a public generative artificial intelligence system.
   2. The use of generative artificial intelligence does not unlawfully discriminate against or disparately impact individuals or communities based on age, ancestry, color, ethnicity, gender, gender expression, gender identity, genetic information, marital status, medical condition, military or veteran status, national origin, physical or mental disability, political affiliation, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and any other classification protected by federal or state law.
   3. Reasonable steps are taken to do all of the following:
      1. verify the accuracy of generative artificial intelligence material, including any material prepared on their behalf by others;
      2. correct any erroneous or hallucinated output in any material used by the attorney;
      3. remove any biased, offensive, or harmful content in any generative artificial intelligence material used, including any material prepared on their behalf by others;
      4. the attorney considers whether to disclose the use of generative artificial intelligence if it is used to create content provided to the public.
2. Prohibits a brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court from containing any citations that the attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally read and verified, including any citation provided by generative artificial intelligence.
3. Prohibits an arbitrator from delegating any part of their decision-making process to any generative artificial intelligence tool.
4. Prohibits the use of generative artificial intelligence tools by arbitrators from replacing their independent analysis of the facts, the law, and the evidence.
5. Prohibits an arbitrator from relinquishing their decision-making powers to generative artificial intelligence and delegating any tasks to generative artificial intelligence tools if such use could influence procedural or substantive decisions.
6. Prohibits an arbitrator from relying on information generated by generative artificial intelligence outside the record without making appropriate disclosures to the parties beforehand and, as far as practical, allowing the parties to comment on its use.
   1. If a generative artificial intelligence tool cannot cite sources that can be independently verified, an arbitrator shall not assume that such sources exist or are characterized accurately.
   2. An arbitrator assumes responsibility for all aspects of an award, regardless of any use of generative artificial intelligence tools to assist with the decision-making process.
7. Defines “generative artificial intelligence” means 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.

COMMENTS

1. Stated need for the bill

The author writes:

Artificial Intelligence and its use now permeate every industry in the U.S. Its capabilities continue to improve at an exponential rate, but it is far from perfect. We must be cautious when determining best practices for its use in high-stakes industries, including the legal profession. SB 574 protects those receiving legal services by codifying certain safeguards for the use of A.I. by attorneys and arbitrators.

1. AI, the practice of law, and arbitration

The California State Bar’s Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct released guidance on the use of generative AI noting that:

Generative AI use presents unique challenges; it uses large volumes of data, there are many competing AI models and products, and, even for those who create generative AI products, there is a lack of clarity as to how it works. In addition, generative AI poses the risk of encouraging greater reliance and trust on its outputs because of its purpose to generate responses and its ability to do so in a manner that projects confidence and effectively emulates human responses. A lawyer should consider these and other risks before using generative AI in providing legal services.^[1]

Recently, an attorney was fined $10,000 for filing a state court appeal full of fake quotations generated by the artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT. The Court of Appeal noted that “nearly all of the quotations in plaintiff's opening brief, and many of the quotations in plaintiff's reply brief, have been fabricated.”^[2] The opinion further elucidated that the attorney of record admitted he used AI to “support citation of legal issues” and that the “fabricated quotes were AI-generated. He further asserted that he had not been aware that generative AI frequently fabricates or hallucinates legal sources and, thus, he did not ‘manually verify [the quotations] against more reliable sources.”^[3] The court of appeal published the opinion as a warning to the legal community writing “[s]imply stated, no brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court should contain any citations—whether provided by generative AI or any other source—that the attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally read and verified.”^[4]

The American Arbitration Association–International Centre for Dispute Resolution (AAA-ICDR) announced in September of 2025 that it was releasing an AI arbitrator to resolve actual cases for two-party, documents only construction cases where both parties opted in to its use.^[5] The AA-ICDR websites states:

the AI arbitrator was trained on actual arbitrator reasoning from AAA-ICDR construction cases and calibrated and trained with human arbitrator input. With each step of the dispute resolution process, the AI arbitrator will evaluate the merits of claims, generate explainable recommendations, and prepare draft awards that will be benchmarked to maintain alignment with expert human legal judgment. A human-in-the-loop framework embeds human arbitrators to review reasoning, evaluate and, if needed, revise AI-driven outcomes before a decision is finalized, and validate results, safeguarding trust, transparency, and due process.^[6]

The California Rules of Court Standard 10.80 prescribe rules for the use of generative AI for any task with an adjudicative role. These include:

• not entering confidential, personal identifying, or other nonpublic information into a public generative AI system;
• not using generative AI to unlawfully discriminate against or disparately impact individuals or communities based on certain protected classifications;
• taking reasonable steps to remove any biased, offensive, or harmful content in any generative AI material used, including any material prepared on their behalf by others; and
• considering whether to disclose the use of generative AI if it is used to create content provided to the public.

This bill seeks to provide basic guidelines for the use of generative AI by attorneys and arbitrators by modeling its provisions off the California Rules of Court Standard 10.80 and the ruling in Noland regarding verifying cases and citations used in documents submitted to the courts.

1. Federal Preemption and the Federal Arbitration Act FAA

The FAA was enacted by the U. S. Congress in 1925 in response to widespread judicial hostility to arbitration agreements. Section 2 of the FAA generally provides that a written provision in any contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract. (See 9 U.S.C. Sec. 2; similar language is contained within the CAA at Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.)

The concept of preemption derives from the “supremacy clause” of the federal Constitution, which provides that the laws of the United States “shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Courts have typically identified three circumstances in which federal preemption of state law occurs:

(1) express preemption, where Congress explicitly defines the extent to which its enactments preempt state law; (2) field preemption, where state law attempts to regulate conduct in a field that Congress intended the federal law exclusively to occupy; and (3) conflict preemption, where it is impossible to comply with both state and federal requirements, or where state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purpose and objectives of Congress.

In assessing whether a state law is preempted by the FAA, three key aspects of the law surrounding arbitration and preemption are especially relevant. First, the federal courts have ruled that the FAA was intended to promote arbitration. Second, state laws or rules that interfere with the enforcement of arbitration agreements are preempted, except on such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract. Third, state laws that explicitly or covertly discriminate against arbitration agreements as compared to other contracts are also preempted. As this bill is not affecting the arbitration of claims but providing guideline for the use of generative AI in arbitration, it should not run afoul of the FAA.

1. Statements in support

Oakland Privacy writes in support stating:

Oakland Privacy writes to offer our support to Senate Bill 574. The bill would prevent attorneys from entering the personal information of clients or other individuals into a public generative AI system, require all citations in a legal filing, including those generated by an AI system, to be personally verified by the filing attorney, and limits the role of artificial intelligence programs in arbitation decisions. […]

SUPPORT

Oakland Privacy

OPPOSITION

None known

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation: None known.

Prior Legislation: None known.

**************

1. State Bar of Cal. Standing Comm. on Prof. Responsibility and Conduct, Practical Guidance for the use if Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law, available at https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/ethics/Generative-AI-Practical-Guidance.pdf. ↑

2. Noland v. Land of the Free (2025) 114 Cal.App.5^th 426 at 435. ↑

3. Id. at 441. ↑

4. Id. at 430. ↑

5. AAA-ICDR® to Launch AI-Native Arbitrator, Transforming Dispute Resolution, Amer. Arbitration Assn., (Sept. 17, 2025), https://www.adr.org/press-releases/aaa-icdr-to-launch-ai-native-arbitrator-transforming-dispute-resolution/. ↑

6. Ibid. ↑