Pending Generative AI Legislation — Proposed Amendment to the State Bar Act and Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7

This topic will not go away: misuse of generative AI producing hallucinated case citations and quotations. As of early February 2026, there have been more than 600 judicial decisions across the United States in which judges have criticized, sanctioned—including some hefty monetary sanctions—and in some instances, referred lawyers to relevant disciplinary authority. California has contributed more than its fair share to that total.

Judges have expressed their frustration having to deal with lawyers who patently did not look at cited cases before filing pleadings and briefs, with some federal judges and district courts adopting standing orders or local rules setting use guidelines for, or barring outright, generative AI.

The California Legislature has now stepped in. Senator Umberg, Senate Judiciary Committee chair, introduced SB 574, which the Senate recently passed unanimously (39-0) and sent to the Assembly. The legislation would amend the State Bar Act by adding a new provision, Business and Professions Code section 6068.1. The intent of the legislation appears clear. 

Presently section 6068, with its fifteen enumerated subsections, begins: “It is the duty of a lawyer to do all of the following.” One does not have to read many State Bar Court decisions to understand that the State Bar relies whenever it can on section 6068 in disciplinary proceedings.

Senator Umberg’s proposed legislation also begins: “It is the duty of an attorney using generative artificial intelligence to practice law to ensure all the following,” with four enumerated subsections. The parallel is hardly a coincidence. Thus, if the Umberg legislation passes and the governor signs it, the State Bar would have yet another disciplinary tool, specifically to address judicial referrals of lawyers who misuse generative AI.

What would SB 574 require? First, it would mandate that lawyers who use generative AI ensure that confidential personal or other non-public information is not entered into a generative AI system. This obligation, of course, follows our Rule 1.6 and section 6068, subdivision (e)(1) obligations to protect confidential client information. Just in case a lawyer thought such client confidential information could be used in, for example, a generative AI query, the proposed legislation addresses this directly—it’s forbidden. 

There’s more. 

The legislation also addresses hallucinated case citations and quotations, requiring lawyers to take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of the output that generative AI delivers; further, lawyers would have an obligation to correct any inaccurate or hallucinated data. 

And more.

According to the Legislative Counsel’s Digest, the legislation specifically prohibits a lawyer from filing any document—brief, pleading, motion, any paper—in any California court if the document has citations the lawyer who submits it, or who is responsible for submitting it, has not personally read and verified, including any citations that resulted from generative AI. 

The “personally read and verified” mandate shifts that burden to the lawyer who signs the document, or presumably the lawyer who actively directs another lawyer to submit the document, personally to read every cited case, and then verify the accuracy of both the citation and any quoted material. 

Specifically, section 6068.1(a) would state: “It is the duty of an attorney using generative artificial intelligence to practice law to ensure all the following:” the four enumerated provisions that address (1) confidential information; (2) discriminatory content; (3) reasonable steps to ensure accuracy and removal and correction of erroneous or hallucinated output; and removal of biased, offensive or harmful content; and (4) disclosure of use of generative AI used to create content provided to the public. 

Section 6068.1(b) would define 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.”

The legislation would also amend Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 with a new section 128.7 (a) that contains the same obligation that no brief, pleading, motion or any other paper filed in court contain any citations that the lawyer submitting the document has not personally read and verified, including any citation provided by generative AI.

New lawyers (and all lawyers) should continue to be mindful of their ethical duties in incorporating generative AI into their law practice. Regardless of updates to the California Business and Professions Code, AI creates substantial risks. Learn the technology you are using, and safeguard confidential client data, and ensure that court filings are accurate and non-hallucinated.