California Legislature Sends the “Court A.I. Protection Act” to the Governor for Signature

The California Legislature on August 31, 2026, passed Senate Bill 574, entitled the “Court A.I. Protection Act.”  Although bar associations have been issuing ethical guidance regarding generative artificial intelligence (“GenAI”), this is the first state law imposing mandatory requirements regarding attorneys’ use of GenAI.  Notably, the bill passed both chambers of the California Legislature without a single “no” vote—75-0 in the Assembly and 40-0 in the Senate.

Update: Governor Gavin Newsom signed California Senate Bill 574 (SB 574) into law on September 30, 2026.  SB 574 is among the first state laws specifically addressing attorneys’ use of generative AI and takes effect on January 1, 2027.

The AI Protection Act was presented to Governor Gavin Newsom on September 9, 2026, and if Governor Newsom signs it (as is expected), the Act will add provisions to the California Business & Professions Code governing the conduct of attorneys and to the California Code of Civil Procedure regarding court submissions and sanctions.

The Act Emphatically Imposes Duties on Attorneys Regarding GenAI

With respect to attorneys’ use of GenAI, the Act provides that:

• “An attorney shall not delegate the practice of law to generative artificial intelligence.”
• An attorney who uses GenAI to assist in the practice of law:

• Shall not “enter confidential, personal identifying, and other nonpublic information” into an open or public GenAI system. 
• Shall take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of GenAI outputs “including, but not limited to, the accuracy of all case and statutory citations.”
• Shall take reasonable steps to correct “any erroneous or hallucinated output in any material used by the attorney.”
• Shall disclose the use of GenAI “to the court for all documents submitted to the court[.]”
• Shall “consider whether to disclose” the attorney’s use of GenAI “if it is used to create content provided to the public.”

• “A brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court shall not contain any citations that an attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally verified, including any citation provided by generative artificial intelligence.”

The Act provides that a court may impose sanctions—either by motion or sua sponte by the court—”upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties” that violate the citation verification requirement and that absent exceptional circumstances, the law firm will be held jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, associates, and employees.  Sanctions must be limited to “what is sufficient to deter repetition of this conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated” and may include monetary sanctions.  Violations of GenAI-related requirements outside of court filings may be punishable by State Bar enforcement.

The Act also includes provisions applying to alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) firms’ and practitioners’ use of GenAI, prohibiting an ADR provider from delegating decision-making to a GenAI tool and replacing the arbitrator’s independent analysis of facts, law, and evidence.  The Act empowers the State Bar to investigate complaints regarding arbitrators’ use of GenAI and requires the production of records to the State Bar investigating a complaint.

Although the American Arbitration Association has voiced opposition to the ADR-related provisions, as noted above, the Governor is expected to sign the bill and he has until September 30, 2026, to do so.

Key Takeaways

Organizations with attorneys operating in California should consider the following.

• The Act’s provisions apply to both inside and outside counsel.  The Act’s provisions apply to the use of GenAI “in the practice of law” generally.  They do not distinguish between inside and outside counsel.  Indeed, many of the GenAI uses to which the Act applies are regularly undertaken by both inside and outside counsel.
• The prohibition against “delegation” of the practice of law to GenAI could have important consequences.  While the Act recognizes that attorneys may use GenAI as a tool to assist in the practice of law, the line where that use crosses into “delegation” of the practice of law to GenAI is unclear.  Presumably, it means that an attorney cannot simply enter a legal question as a prompt and then deliver the output to a client without meaningful consideration or review.  It could also potentially impact attorneys’ role in creating GenAI-driven legal intelligence platforms to which non-attorney users can submit legal questions without an attorney’s active involvement in the responses.
• Court filings in California will routinely include disclosures regarding the use of GenAI.  The Act’s disclosure requirement regarding court submissions does not distinguish among different kinds of GenAI use in creating a document for submission to a court.  Accordingly, the use of a GenAI tool for purposes of merely editing and improving the quality of writing in a brief will require disclosure just as using GenAI for case law research.  Additionally, as industry-standard legal research platforms such as Westlaw and Lexis are increasingly incorporating GenAI features, it is conceivable that such disclosures will appear in nearly all filings.
• The requirement of “personal” verification of citations by “an attorney responsible for submitting the pleading” could significantly impact litigation practice.  It is common practice to have a paralegal conduct a final cite check on a document before filing it with the court.  That may change.  The requirement of “personal” verification of all citations—regardless of whether or not they are the results of GenAI research—by an attorney responsible for submitting the pleading could mean that the senior partner signing the submission will have to review all of the cases and statutes cited. 
• Attorneys must take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of GenAI outputs in the practice of law generally.  The duty to verify the accuracy of GenAI outputs is not limited to court filings.  As the usage of these tools becomes increasingly commonplace to assist in the practice of law, attorneys must understand what actions are reasonable to check GenAI output.  This would include the use of GenAI tools to assist with investigations and the discovery process, including requests for, and responses to, discovery as well as the review and production of documents in litigation.
• Disclosures of attorneys’ use of GenAI may extend beyond court filings to public content.  While not required, the Act encourages attorneys to “consider” disclosing their use of GenAI in creating public content, such as this alert (see disclosure in footer below).

Redgrave LLP’s Perspective

Redgrave LLP continues to monitor developments at the intersection of artificial intelligence governance, professional responsibility, and discovery practice.  Our attorneys regularly advise clients on the governance of legal technology and on preserving privilege in investigations and disputes.   

For additional information on this topic, please reach out to your Redgrave LLP contact, or you can connect with Robert Keeling, Jonathan Redgrave, Erica Zolner, and Gareth Evans.

Redgrave LLP provides this information for educational purposes only. It should not be construed or relied on as legal advice or to create a lawyer-client relationship.