Guest Post: Jackie McCloud, Research and Instructional Services Librarian, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law

California leads the nation in its efforts to regulate and provide guidance on the use of generative artificial intelligence in its statewide court system and by attorneys admitted to practice. In 2023, California was the first state to issue formal ethical guidance for attorneys on the use of generative AI in the practice of law. In 2025, California adopted the nation’s first AI framework governing the use of generative AI in its state court system. In 2026, California is addressing generative AI in the legal profession on three fronts: (1) updating and replacing its original ethics guidance on attorneys’ AI use with its 2026 Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law; (2) evaluating proposed amendments to the California Rules of Professional Conduct; and (3) enacting first-in-the-nation laws regulating attorneys’ use of generative AI in providing legal services.

On May 17, 2024, Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero launched the Artificial Intelligence Task Force to evaluate the benefits and risks of generative AI use in the judicial process, including rules of court, technology policies, educational programs, and legislative proposals. After nine months of review, the Artificial Intelligence Task Force presented itsModel Policy for Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence to California’s Judicial Council on February 21, 2025.

The task force proposed that California courts use the model policy to implement generative AI use policies for court staff and judicial officers outside of their adjudicative roles. The model policy addressed supervision, accountability, transparency, and compliance when using generative AI systems. The policy also addresses concerns about confidentiality, privacy, bias, safety, and security risks. Notably, this model policy does not mandate that courts must permit the use of AI.

The task force’s work did not stop with its new model policy. On July 18, 2025, the task force presented its Rule and Standard for Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court-Related Work and recommended in its Report to the Judicial Council that the Judicial Council adopt a court rule and a judicial administration standard addressing the use of generative AI for court-related work. Acknowledging in its report that regulating specific uses of generative AI is a difficult task, the task force instead drafted its generative AI rule and standard to provide flexibility and discretion, reasoning that the judiciary is in the best position to identify acceptable uses of generative AI to meet their specific needs and to determine if their use complies with the California Code of Judicial Ethics and any other applicable ethical guidance. The Judicial Council adopted California Rules of Court, rule 10.430 and California Standards of Judicial Administration, standard 10.80, with both rule and standard effective September 1, 2025. Jud. Council of CA, Jud. Branch Admin: Rule and Standard of Use of Generative Artificial Intel. in Court-Related Work, Item No. 25-109 (2025). 

 Cal. R. Ct., rule 10.430 mandates that any court (superior courts, the Courts of Appeal, and the Supreme Court) permitting the use of AI for court-related work must adopt an AI use policy by December 15, 2025. Cal. R. Ct., rule 10.430 requires that the court’s AI use policy protect confidential and personal information; safeguard against discrimination and bias; mandates human oversight of artificial intelligence, including verifying outputs and correcting any errors or hallucinations; and requires disclosure of AI use if the final work product (written, visual, or audio) is comprised of entirely generative AI outputs. Lastly, the rule requires complying with applicable laws, court policies, and ethical and professional conduct rules.                                                                                                                             

Cal. R. Ct., standard 10.80 regulates the use of generative AI for court-related work by judicial officers for any task within their adjudicative role and includes several requirements similar to Cal. R. Ct., rule 10.430, including data privacy protections, safeguards against discrimination and bias, generative AI output review, verification and correction. Notably, Cal. R. Ct., standard 10.80 can be distinguished from its counterpart, Cal. R. Ct., rule 10.430, as it does not require disclosure of AI use, but allows for discretionary disclosure, leaving this decision within the discretion of judicial officers.

2026 AI Advisory Opinion & Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct 

Before the American Bar Association published Formal Opinion 512: Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools on July 29, 2024, the State Bar of California’s Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct (COPRAC) issued its Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law on November 16, 2023. Nearly two years later, the California Supreme Court requested that COPRAC consider incorporating principles from its 2023 Practical Guidance into the comments for the California Rules of Professional Conduct and any additional guidance needed to address recent and upcoming generative AI developments, including new agentic AI tools. California Supreme Court letter to COPRAC, August 22, 2025.

Responding to the California Supreme Court’s directive, COPRAC drafted proposed comments to six ethics rules:

• Competence (Rule 1.1);
• Communication with Clients (Rule 1.4);
• Confidential Information of a Client (Rule 1.6);
• Candor Toward the Tribunal (Rule 3.3);
• Responsibilities of Managerial and Supervisory Lawyers (Rule 5.1); and
• Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants (Rule 5.3).

COPRAC’s decision to incorporate AI use throughout the comments to the ethics rules demonstrates the pervasive impact this evolving technology has on the practice of law. On March 13, 2026, COPRAC approved the proposed amendments relating to AI use for a 45-day comment period that ended on May 4, 2026.

At the same time, COPRAC was busy reviewing and revising its 2023 Practical Guidance to reflect the unique challenges of using agentic AI, further clarifying AI use in legal practice related to attorneys’ ethical duties of competence, confidentiality, communication, and candor to the court, among other duties. On May 14, 2026, the Board of Trustees approved and adopted COPRAC’s updated 2026 Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law, replacing the 2023 Practical Guidance. In its 2026 Practical Guidance, COPRAC cautions in the executive summary:

Critically, any use of AI must not diminish or abdicate professional judgment. A lawyer remains fully responsible for any outputs and work product generated with the assistance of AI. Moreover, the greater the degree of autonomy afforded to an AI system (i.e., agentic systems), the more important it is for a lawyer to implement supervisory controls and verification mechanisms.

Following the first 45-day comment period, COPRAC modified the proposed AI professional conduct rules in early June 2026, opening another 45-day comment period that ended on August 6, 2026. While there was discussion of the proposed AI rules at the August 7, 2026, meeting, no action was taken and the rulemaking process continued. COPRAC next met on September 11, 2026, and, according to its draft meeting minutes, unanimously voted to approve and submit the Proposed Amended Rules of Conduct to the Board of Trustees for its approval.

If the Board of Trustees approves these amendments, the California Rules of Professional Conduct’s rule comments will include these additional comments:

• Rule 1.1 Competence

“[1] The duties set forth in this rule include the duty to keep abreast of the changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, including artificial intelligence, as defined by Government Code section 11549.64.”

“[2] When using technology, including artificial intelligence, competence requires a lawyer to exercise professional judgment over all aspects of that use, including, but not limited to, the inputs and outputs. When citing legal authority to a tribunal, a lawyer must comply with the duty of candor. See rule 3.3; Business and Professions Code section 6068(d). When citing legal authority to a client or to other parties, the lawyer must verify the accuracy and existence of cited authorities to ensure the lawyer employs only those means consistent with the truth. See Business and Professions Code section 6068(d).”

• Rule 1.4 Communication with Clients

“[5] A lawyer’s duty to keep a client reasonably informed includes evaluation of the lawyer’s communication obligations concerning the lawyer’s use of technology, including artificial intelligence, throughout the representation based on the facts and circumstances, including the novelty of the technology, risks and benefits associated with the use of the

technology, scope of the representation, and sophistication of the client.”

• Rule 1.6 Confidential Information of a Client

“[2] For purposes of this rule, “reveal” includes exposing confidential information to technological systems, including artificial intelligence tools, where such exposure creates a substantial* risk that the information may be accessed, retained, or used, whether by the technological system or another user of that technological system, in a manner inconsistent with the lawyer’s duty of confidentiality. In determining whether a substantial* risk exists, the lawyer should consider: the nature and operation of the technology, including whether data is retained or used for model training; the security measures in place; and whether the information may be accessed by unauthorized users or third parties.”

• Rule 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal

“[3] A lawyer’s duty of candor towards the tribunal includes the obligation to verify the accuracy and existence of cited authorities, including ensuring no cited authority is fabricated, misstated, or taken out of context, before submission to a tribunal, including any cited authorities generated or assisted by artificial intelligence or other technological tools.”

• Rule 5.1 Responsibilities of Managerial and Supervisory Lawyers 

“[1] Paragraph (a) requires lawyers with managerial authority within a law firm* to make reasonable* efforts to establish internal policies and procedures designed, for example, to detect and resolve conflicts of interest, identify dates by which actions must be taken in pending matters, account for client funds and property, ensure that inexperienced lawyers

are properly supervised, and govern the use of artificial intelligence, in accordance with the Rules of Professional Conduct.”

• Rule 5.3 Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants

“Lawyers often utilize nonlawyer personnel, including secretaries, investigators, law student interns, and paraprofessionals. Such assistants, whether employees or independent contractors, act for the lawyer in rendition of the lawyer’s professional services. A lawyer must give such assistants appropriate instruction and supervision concerning all ethical aspects of their employment, including the use of technology in the provision of legal services, such as artificial intelligence. The measures employed in instructing and supervising nonlawyers should take account of the fact that they might not have legal training.”

Proposed Amended Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.4, 1.6, 3.3, 5.1, and 5.3 (clean and redline).

California Enacts Law Regulating Attorneys’ AI Use

All the while, the California General Assembly was at work considering Senate Bill 574. Senator Tom Umberg (D-Orange County), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, with co-author Assembly Member Alexandra Macedo (R-AD33), Vice Chair of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, introduced S.B. 574, to amend the California Business and Professions Code and the California Code of Civil Procedure, on February 20, 2025.

On January 29, 2026, the California Senate unanimously passed S.B. 574 and referred it to the Assembly. After advancing through the Assembly committees (Judiciary, Privacy and Consumer Protection, and Appropriations), S.B. 574 proceeded to the Assembly floor in July 2026. At the final and third reading, the bill was amended on August 21, 2026, leaving only 10 days for the Assembly to pass the bill before the end of the legislative session. On August 31, 2026, the last day of the legislative session, S.B. 574 unanimously passed the Assembly as well as the Senate concurrence. On September 30, 2026, Governor Gavin Newsom (D) signed S.B. 574.

S.B. 574, effective January 1, 2027, regulates attorneys’ use of AI to assist in the practice of law, amending the California Business and Professions Code. Notably, section 6068.1 upholds the duty to exercise reasonable competence and diligence in the practice of law and expressly prohibits an attorney from delegating the practice of law to generative AI. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068.1(a)(1) and (2).

Under the new law, attorneys opting to use generative AI to assist in the practice of law are prohibited from entering confidential, personal, or other nonpublic information into a generative AI system. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068.1(a)(3)(A). Additionally, the new law requires attorneys to take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of generative AI outputs, including verifying all citations and correcting any erroneous or hallucinated outputs. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068.1(a)(3)(B). Lastly, Section 6068.1 imposes a disclosure obligation for all court filings, requiring attorneys to disclose to the court their use of AI for all documents submitted to the court. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068.1(a)(3)(C). S.B. 574 also amends Section 128.7 of the Code of Civil Procedure to impose a requirement that the attorney of record personally verify each citation, including any citation provided by generative AI, making any failure to verify subject to sanctions under Section 128.7(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Civ. Proc. §128.7(b)(2).

Conclusion

While AI tools promise efficiency, there are definite challenges and risks, and expectations about AI use in the legal profession are quickly evolving. California has kept pace and leads the nation in regulating AI use by attorneys, developing a holistic approach that addresses AI use across the legal profession. Balancing innovation against potential harm, California’s approach centers the concept of being the “human in the loop.” States seeking to regulate attorneys’ AI use will likely look to California as a model.

Jackie McCloud is a Research and Instructional Services Librarian at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, where she teaches courses in Legal Research, Responsible Lawyering, and Advanced Legal Research. She holds of Juris Doctor from the University of Akron School of Law, a Master of Library and Information Science and a Bachelor of Arts in Paralegal Studies from Kent State University. She previously served as the Head of Electronic Resources and Computer Services at the University of Iowa College of Law and as the Digital Content Services/Reference Librarian at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law. She has also served in roles with information vendors OverDrive, Inc., and Bloomberg BNA. She is an experienced attorney and member of the Ohio Bar (inactive). Her research interests include the intersection of law and libraries, equitable access to information, and emerging technologies. She is an active member of several professional library organizations, including AALL, MAALL, and GLOVALL.