California SB 574 Makes Lawyers Track AI in Court Filings
Published by AINave Editorial
California SB 574 makes generative AI use in court filings a disclosure issue, including when the technology is tucked into everyday legal research or drafting software. Signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sept. 30, the law takes effect Jan. 1. For firms, the practical challenge is deciding what counts as AI use and tracking which filings it touched, according to Bloomberg Law’s account of the statute.
Disclosure reaches beyond AI-written text
The requirement applies to documents filed with courts, with no exception for minor AI use, the article reports. A law professor quoted in the story said using AI to research, draft or even edit a brief could require disclosure. That scope makes the question more complicated than whether a lawyer pasted generated paragraphs into a filing: AI features can be embedded in tools lawyers already use.
Akerman chairman Scott Meyers said firms would need to work out what counts as using AI. The article also reports that firms expect to strengthen internal controls. In practice, a disclosure rule with a broad trigger makes a record of AI-touched filings as important as a policy defining which tools are covered. The source does not provide a required disclosure format or detailed implementation procedure.
Citation checks remain a lawyer’s responsibility
SB 574 also requires lawyers to verify every citation before filing, including citations that AI did not generate, and requires at least one attorney to sign each filing in their own name. The law bars lawyers from entering confidential client information into public AI tools and authorizes courts to sanction violations, the report says.
That combination matters: the statute addresses both the visibility of AI use and the human responsibility attached to a court submission. Baker Botts partner Ariel House said personal verification could take time, particularly for solo practitioners and small firms that rely on paralegals to check references under attorney supervision. The requirement is therefore broader than catching hallucinated citations; it puts the final check on the lawyer signing the document.
The boundary is judgment, not just drafting
The law also restricts handing legal work to AI, according to the article. Meyers described Akerman’s agentic tools as designed for a lawyer to review the work and make the final decision. That distinction points to a difficult operational boundary as software moves from producing text toward taking actions on a lawyer’s behalf: oversight has to be meaningful enough that the lawyer retains judgment.
The immediate compliance task is not simply to prohibit AI or label every generated sentence. Firms must identify where AI enters their workflows, connect that use to court filings, and preserve attorney review. California’s statute turns those internal decisions into a matter of legal disclosure and accountability.
