California AI disclosure mandate raises questions for lawyers

California’s SB 574 adds new rules governing how lawyers and arbitrators use generative AI. The measure adds Business and Professions Code section 6068.1, prohibiting attorneys from delegating the practice of law to generative AI and from putting confidential, personally identifying, or other nonpublic information into public generative AI systems. It also amends Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 to require attorneys to personally read and verify cited authorities, and adds section 1282.1 to bar arbitrators from delegating decision-making to generative AI.

The most contested provision requires lawyers who use generative AI in practice to disclose that use to courts for all submitted documents. The mandate does not specify where disclosure must appear, how it must be phrased, or what level of software assistance counts as use. The law’s broad definition could reach legal research tools, writing assistants such as Microsoft Editor and Grammarly, Google search results, Microsoft Copilot, and e-discovery systems.

Uncertain boundaries could push lawyers toward boilerplate filings listing routine software rather than providing useful signals to judges. Existing duties of competence, confidentiality, candor, and citation verification already support sanctions when lawyers submit hallucinated or unsupported authorities. Local rules may need updates before SB 574 becomes effective on January 1, 2027 to focus disclosures on uses that matter to courts.