California SB 574: Lawyers Must Personally Verify Citations and Disclose AI Use

The details below come from two law-firm summaries, Holland & Knight (October 1) and Morgan Lewis (October 2). We couldn't open the enrolled bill text, so check the statute itself before you rely on a specific phrase.

What SB 574 changes

The bill touches three places in California law.

Code of Civil Procedure 128.7 (citations in filings). A paper filed in a California court may not contain a citation the responsible attorney hasn't personally verified. Morgan Lewis notes the rule applies whether or not AI was used, and that it expressly covers citations generative AI supplies. Violations go through the existing 128.7 sanctions process. Holland & Knight adds that a firm is jointly responsible for violations by its partners, associates and employees, absent exceptional circumstances.

Business and Professions Code 6068.1 (new, attorney duties). Per the summaries, a lawyer may use generative AI to assist in the practice of law but may not delegate the practice of law to it. Confidential, nonpublic or personally identifying information can go into a generative AI system only if access is restricted to the attorney and authorized persons who are bound by confidentiality. The lawyer must take reasonable steps to verify AI output, including case and statute citations, and correct anything erroneous or hallucinated. And the lawyer must disclose AI use to the court for documents submitted.

Code of Civil Procedure 1282.1 (arbitrators). Arbitrators can't delegate any part of the decision-making process to generative AI, and can't rely on AI-generated information from outside the record without disclosing it first and, where practical, letting the parties respond (Morgan Lewis).

What the statute leaves open

Holland & Knight points out that the text doesn't define "delegate" or "the practice of law," and doesn't list tasks that are allowed or banned. It also doesn't prescribe the form of the court disclosure or how much AI involvement triggers it. The summary describes two possible readings: a disclosure on the AI-assisted filing only, or a broader duty tied to general AI use. It calls document-specific disclosure the more prudent course whenever AI helped prepare a filing.

Two more points matter for planning:

• In-house counsel are covered. Morgan Lewis says SB 574 "does not distinguish between attorneys who work at law firms and those in corporate legal departments."
• "The tool checked it" is not a defense by itself. The rule is about the attorney's personal verification, not a vendor's feature.

What to do before January 1, 2027

This section is our read, not statutory text.

1. Put a name on every citation check. For California filings, record who verified each citation, against which primary source, and when. The AI citation verification log template is a ready-made format.
2. Map which tools touch client data. The confidentiality rule turns on who can access the tool. List each AI tool, who has access, and whether those people are bound by confidentiality duties. Consumer chatbots are the likely problem; Holland & Knight says the restriction may rule out some publicly available tools.
3. Draft your disclosure line now. Pick wording that says AI tools were used in preparing the filing and that the signing attorney personally verified each citation against its primary source. Treat it as a draft until a court or the State Bar says otherwise. The court disclosure cheat sheet and the disclosure template cover what courts already ask for.
4. Review outside counsel guidelines. If you're an in-house team, check what your guidelines say about AI use and about who verifies citations in California matters.
5. Watch for guidance. Morgan Lewis lists the State Bar, the Judicial Council and individual courts as the places to monitor.

For the current California picture, including court rules that already exist, see California AI court disclosure rules and California AI law for lawyers. For what sanctions look like in practice, read Aguilar v. Crawford Group, where the court wrote that whether AI was used or not, the lawyer didn't confirm the truthfulness of his citations.

Sources

• Holland & Knight, California Enacts Rules Governing Lawyers' Use of Generative AI (Oct 1, 2026)
• Morgan Lewis, California SB 574: What Legal Departments Should Know (Oct 2, 2026)
• California Legislature, SB 574 bill status (The enrolled text was not readable by our tools on October 21, 2026; confirm statutory wording there)

Operational information, not legal advice. Statutory details come from the two law-firm summaries above, read October 21, 2026; we could not open the enrolled bill. The log and sample steps are our suggestions, not statutory requirements.