AI rules for lawyers and courts taking effect January 1, 2027

What changes, for whom, and when

SB 574: the attorney duties in section 6068.1

We read the chaptered text of SB 574 (version CHP, dated Sept 30, 2026) as published by CalMatters Digital Democracy on October 21, 2026. The California Legislature's own site, leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, blocked our automated request with an access error that day, so we could not compare against it. Check the wording on leginfo before relying on a phrase. Our earlier SB 574 guide worked from two law-firm summaries; this page is based on the statute text.

New section 6068.1(a) of the Business and Professions Code says an attorney "shall not delegate the practice of law to generative artificial intelligence." An attorney who uses generative AI to assist in practice must do all of the following:

• Not enter confidential, personal identifying or other nonpublic information into a generative AI system unless access to that information is restricted to the attorney and persons the attorney authorizes who are under obligations to protect its confidentiality.
• Take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of AI outputs, including the accuracy of all case and statutory citations, and to correct any erroneous or hallucinated output in material the attorney uses.
• Disclose the use of generative AI to the court for all documents submitted to the court, and consider whether to disclose it when AI creates content provided to the public.

The statute defines generative AI as 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. Its list of personal identifying information covers driver's license numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, criminal-history identifiers, addresses and phone numbers of parties, victims, witnesses and court personnel, medical or psychiatric information, financial information, account numbers, and anything sealed by court order or deemed confidential by rule or statute.

What the section does not say: it does not prescribe the form or content of the court disclosure, define "the practice of law" or "delegate", or set its own penalty. We have not analyzed how State Bar discipline or court rules would apply to a violation.

SB 574: the citation rule in CCP 128.7

SB 574 adds paragraph (b)(2) to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7: "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 rule applies to unverified citations from any source, not only AI.

Enforcement runs through the sanctions process that section 128.7 already had, which the bill leaves in place:

• A party's sanctions motion must be served first and can be filed only if the paper is not withdrawn or corrected within 21 days. The court may also act on its own with an order to show cause, with the same 21 days to withdraw or correct.
• A sanction is limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition. It can be nonmonetary, a penalty paid to the court, or an order to pay the movant's reasonable attorney's fees and expenses.
• Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm is jointly responsible for violations by its partners, associates and employees.
• New subdivision (d)(1): monetary sanctions may not be awarded against a represented party for a violation of paragraph (b)(2).
• Existing subdivision (g) still says section 128.7 does not apply to disclosures and discovery requests, responses, objections and motions.

SB 574: arbitrators, Judicial Council and the rest of the bill

New Code of Civil Procedure section 1282.1 says an arbitrator may not delegate any part of their decisionmaking process to a generative AI tool, and may not rely on AI-generated information from outside the record without making appropriate disclosures to the parties beforehand and, as far as practical, letting the parties comment on its use.

New Code of Civil Procedure section 180 directs the Judicial Council to publicly revisit, and revise as necessary, Standard 10.80 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration to reflect further development of generative AI.

The bill also amends Business and Professions Code section 6173, the State Bar's voluntary certification program for alternative dispute resolution firms, providers and practitioners, with a complaint procedure and confidentiality rules. That part does not concern AI.

Effective date. The text we read has no urgency clause and no operative-date provision. Under the general rule in Article IV, section 8(c) of the California Constitution, a regular-session statute takes effect on January 1 after enactment, which here is January 1, 2027. Holland & Knight and Morgan Lewis report the same date. CalMatters did not state it.

Iowa Court Rules chapter 27: judicial use of AI tools

The Iowa Supreme Court's order of July 21, 2026, signed by Chief Justice Susan Larson Christensen, adopts new chapter 27 of the Iowa Court Rules, "Judicial Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools," effective January 1, 2027. We read the order and the rule text on October 21, 2026. The chapter has seven rules, 27.101 to 27.107, and governs judicial officers and the people who assist them with adjudicative duties. It sets no duty for lawyers appearing in court.

• Scope (27.102). "Artificial intelligence tool" includes any service or product that uses foundation models, whether built by the judicial branch or bought from a vendor. "Adjudicative duties" are judicial duties in a pending proceeding that affect the parties' substantial rights, such as deciding motions, cases and appeals and issuing rulings. Administrative duties are excluded.
• Judges (27.104). A judicial officer must keep independent decision-making responsibility and must not delegate responsibility or defer to AI work product. A judicial officer or adjudicative assistant must independently verify the accuracy of all factual or legal sources in AI-prepared work product. The judge must oversee assistants' compliance.
• Assistants (27.105). An adjudicative assistant must get the judge's approval before using an AI tool, and must tell the judge about the use and whether the sources were independently verified.
• Tool approval (27.103, 27.106, 27.107). The state court administrator appoints an AI innovation and governance committee. No AI tool may be used with judicial case information, public or confidential, unless the committee has approved it for confidentiality, security and reliability. The administrator must post the list of approved tools publicly. Approval for a tool the judicial branch does not provide can carry configuration limits, and always requires deleting case information and work product from non-branch devices when the person leaves the judicial branch.

As of October 21, 2026, the Iowa Legislature's Iowa Court Rules listing (September 2026 edition) still shows chapter 27 as "Reserved". The Court's order and rule PDF are the sources we cite. We found no news release on chapter 27 on the court's site; the order is posted on its Supreme Court orders page.

Not in effect and unresolved

Do not plan around these as rules. Both are proposals with no effective date, and their status can change before our January 2027 refresh.

• Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707 (machine-generated evidence). The proposal would have applied Rule 702's reliability requirements to machine-generated output offered without an expert. It was published for comment in August 2025. The Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules' October 15, 2026 agenda book says the Committee "voted to withdraw the proposed rule as issued for public comment, and to submit a modified rule proposal for further study," and lists a panel discussion on AI and Rule 707 at that meeting. We found no published outcome of that meeting as of October 21, 2026. Law firm Redgrave describes the May 7, 2026 vote the same way and calls the fall session a mini-conference. A separate draft Rule 901(c) on deepfakes has been prepared but not finally approved. Rule 707 is not among the Evidence Rules out for comment on uscourts.gov (Rules 104 and 902, comment through February 15, 2027).
• California State Bar amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct. The State Bar's public comment page says the Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct (COPRAC) approved amendments to rules 1.1, 1.4, 1.6, 3.3, 5.1 and 5.3 on March 13, 2026, for a 45-day comment period that closed May 4, 2026. The page describes new AI comments on independent review and verification (1.1), communicating AI use when it creates significant risk (1.4), exposure of client information to AI tools (1.6), verifying cited authorities (3.3), and supervising lawyers' and nonlawyers' AI use (5.1, 5.3). The changes follow an August 22, 2025 California Supreme Court letter to the State Bar. We found no Board of Trustees vote, no Supreme Court order and no effective date. Status: unverified beyond the comment period.

What to check before January 1 (our read, not legal advice)

This is operational information, not legal advice, and none of it is statutory text. Your jurisdiction's current rules and your own counsel decide what applies to you.

1. California filings: record who verified each citation, against which primary source, and when. The citation verification log template and the pre-filing checklist are ready formats.
2. Tools and client data: list each AI tool, who can access it, and whether those people are bound by confidentiality duties. Section 6068.1 turns on restricted access.
3. Disclosure wording: the statute names the duty to disclose and leaves the form open. Courts also have their own orders; see the court AI disclosure cheat sheet and California's court disclosure rules.
4. Iowa: if you appear before Iowa judges, chapter 27 changes how chambers use AI, not what you file. Your own duties still sit in the Iowa guidance for lawyers.

Where the sources stand

Primary texts read: the chaptered SB 574 text (through CalMatters, not leginfo), the Iowa order and chapter 27 rule PDF, the Evidence Rules Committee's October 15, 2026 agenda book, and the State Bar's comment page. Secondary: the Holland & Knight and Morgan Lewis summaries for the effective date, and Redgrave for the Rule 707 vote. The sources list below carries the fetch date for each. For the full state picture see AI regulation for law firms and what sanctions look like in practice.

Sources

• California SB 574, chaptered text (CalMatters Digital Democracy copy; leginfo returned 403), read October 21, 2026 (B&P 6068.1, CCP 128.7, 180, 1282.1 and B&P 6173 as quoted)
• Iowa Supreme Court, Order adopting Chapter 27 of the Iowa Court Rules (July 21, 2026), read October 21, 2026 (Adoption and January 1, 2027 effective date)
• Iowa Court Rules chapter 27, Judicial Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools, rules 27.101 to 27.107, read October 21, 2026 (Rule text)
• Iowa Judicial Branch, Supreme Court orders page, read October 21, 2026 (Order summary and links)
• Iowa Legislature, Iowa Court Rules listing (September 2026 edition), read October 21, 2026 (Chapter 27 shown as Reserved)
• Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules, agenda book for the October 15, 2026 meeting, read October 21, 2026 (Rule 707 withdrawn as published, modified proposal; Rule 901(c) not finally approved)
• U.S. Courts, proposed amendments published for public comment, read October 21, 2026 (Evidence Rules 104 and 902 listed; comment period to February 15, 2027)
• Redgrave LLP, Rules Advisory Committee hits pause on proposed FRE 707 (July 2026), read October 21, 2026 (Secondary: May 7, 2026 vote and fall mini-conference)
• State Bar of California, Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct Related to Artificial Intelligence, read October 21, 2026 (COPRAC March 13, 2026; comment closed May 4, 2026)
• Holland & Knight, California Enacts Rules Governing Lawyers' Use of Generative AI (Oct 1, 2026) (Secondary: effective date; as cited in our earlier SB 574 guide, not re-read for this page)
• Morgan Lewis, California SB 574: What Legal Departments Should Know (Oct 2, 2026) (Secondary: effective date; as cited in our earlier SB 574 guide, not re-read for this page)

Operational information, not legal advice. Statute and rule text was read on October 21, 2026; wording and status can change before and after January 1, 2027, so confirm against the official source. Prepared with AI assistance from the cited primary texts and reviewed by AI Vortex.

New: Related year-end deadline: New Jersey CLE technology credit begins with the cycle ending December 31, 2027. See AI CLE requirements and deadlines by state.