California Mandates AI Disclosure in All Legal Filings Starting 2027
Governor Newsom signed SB 574, making California the first state to regulate attorney use of generative AI by statute.
By Diego Mendoza ·
The conflict between legal tradition and digital efficiency has reached a statutory turning point in California. Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed SB 574, which becomes effective on Jan. 1, 2027. This legislation establishes the first state-level rules specifically governing how attorneys utilize generative artificial intelligence in their practice.
The core of the new law is a mandatory disclosure requirement. Attorneys must inform the court of any generative AI use in every document they submit. This shifts AI disclosure from a judge-specific court order to a statewide statutory obligation. For firms with lawyers practicing in California, this creates an immediate need to update internal policies and train staff before the new year begins.
The statute explicitly prohibits attorneys from delegating the practice of law to generative AI. While the law does not define what constitutes delegation, it reinforces the existing duties of competence and diligence. Legal experts interpret this to mean AI can assist in drafting, but a licensed attorney must make the final legal judgments and own the work product. Filing AI-generated advice without meaningful attorney review may violate the law.
Confidentiality is another major focus. The law bars attorneys from entering confidential or personal identifying information into AI systems unless access is strictly restricted. The determining factor is who can see the inputs. Enterprise tools with strong confidentiality terms likely satisfy this requirement. Consumer tools that allow vendors to retain or train on user data likely do not. Firms must review the specific data retention terms for each tool they approve.
Attorneys must also take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of AI outputs. This duty extends to all material used by the attorney, including client advice and internal memos, not just court filings. A hallucinated case citation in an internal document is now a statutory problem in California. The law requires the responsible attorney to personally verify all case and statutory citations in any submitted pleading.
Sanctions for violations are tied to Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.7. A filing shall not contain citations that the responsible attorney has not personally verified. Relying solely on a paralegal or a citation-checking tool may not be sufficient. If a sanctions motion is served, the attorney has a 21-day safe harbor to withdraw or correct the paper to avoid penalties. Monetary fines fall on the attorneys and their firm, not the represented party.
Brendan Palfreyman, leader of the Artificial Intelligence Industry Team at Harris Beach Murtha, advises firms to act now. He recommends adopting standard disclosure language for California filings and designating who confirms AI use on each document. Firms should also establish clear rules on what information can be entered into which tools. The goal is to ensure that AI remains a tool for assistance, not a substitute for professional judgment.
The law does not specify how detailed the disclosure must be. It is unclear if incidental uses count. Until further guidance is provided, the safer course is to assume any meaningful use of generative AI triggers the disclosure requirement. Firms should build this step into their pre-filing checklists to ensure compliance.
Source: amNY
