A fake case citation used to be a story lawyers told at lunch. From January 1, 2027, it becomes a statutory problem. The California AI rules for lawyers are no longer just guidance from the State Bar. On September 30, 2026, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 574, and California became the first state to regulate attorneys’ use of generative AI by statute.
So what actually changes? Less than the headlines suggest in some places, and more in others. Below is a plain-English walk through the law, the ethics rules still on the way, and the parts of a case file that deserve a second look before the new year.
What the California AI Rules for Lawyers Actually Are
There isn’t one rulebook. There are three layers, and they move at different speeds.
First, the statute. SB 574 adds section 6068.1 to the Business and Professions Code. It also amends Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7. Because the bill has no urgency clause, it takes effect on January 1, 2027.
Second, the ethics rules. The State Bar’s ethics committee, known as COPRAC, has proposed AI amendments to six Rules of Professional Conduct. A second public comment period closed on August 6, 2026. However, any change still needs approval from the California Supreme Court before it binds anyone.
Third, the courts themselves. Rule 10.430 of the California Rules of Court took effect on September 1, 2025. It covers how the courts use generative AI in their own work.
Four Duties SB 574 Puts on Every Attorney
The statute does not ban AI. Instead, it spells out what you must do when you use it.
- Don’t delegate. An attorney “shall not delegate the practice of law to generative artificial intelligence.” The law doesn’t define delegation, so expect arguments over where that line sits.
- Guard what goes in. Confidential, personal identifying and other nonpublic information stays out of an AI system unless access is tightly limited. Only the attorney and people the attorney has authorized, who must keep it confidential, may reach it.
- Check what comes out. You must take reasonable steps to verify AI output, including every case and statutory citation. You must also correct anything wrong or hallucinated.
- Tell the court. You must disclose the use of generative AI “for all documents submitted to the court.” In addition, you must consider disclosure when AI helps create content for the public.
That last duty will probably touch the most filings. The statute doesn’t say how detailed the disclosure must be. It doesn’t say whether a small drafting suggestion counts, either. Until the courts say more, some commentators expect firms to add a standard disclosure paragraph to each filing, much like a word-count certificate.
Citations: “Personally Verified” Means You
The change to section 128.7 is short and sharp. A brief, pleading, motion or other paper filed in any court can’t contain a citation that the responsible attorney “has not personally verified.” That includes any citation an AI tool supplied. Under the California AI rules for lawyers, your signature now carries that promise.
Courts were already losing patience. In Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P., a California Court of Appeal found that 21 of 23 case quotations in an opening brief were fabricated. As a result, the court sanctioned the attorney $10,000 and sent its opinion to the State Bar.
The amended statute keeps a few guardrails, though:
- The 21-day safe harbor still applies. If you withdraw or correct the paper in that window, the sanctions motion never reaches the judge.
- A court can’t award monetary sanctions against a represented party for a citation violation. Therefore, the exposure sits with counsel.
- Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm is jointly responsible for violations by its partners, associates and employees.
In other words, one associate’s shortcut can become the whole firm’s problem.
How California AI Rules Protect Client and Party Data
Here is the part that matters to anyone who handles service of process. The statute defines “personal identifying information” broadly. The list includes:
- Driver’s license and Social Security numbers
- Dates of birth
- Addresses and phone numbers of parties, victims, witnesses and court personnel
- Medical, psychiatric and financial information
- Anything sealed by court order or made confidential by rule or statute
Now think about a typical service request. It carries a defendant’s home address and a work address. Sometimes it has a date of birth and a physical description too. A locate report holds even more. So pasting those details into a public chatbot to “tidy up” service instructions is the kind of input section 6068.1 restricts.
Commentators read the test as one of access. A tool that limits your inputs to you and your authorized team may pass. Meanwhile, a free consumer tool that keeps or reviews prompts probably won’t.
What the State Bar Still Has in the Pipeline
The proposed ethics amendments work mostly through new comments to existing rules. For example, the proposed comment to rule 3.3 would require lawyers to verify that cited authorities exist before submission. Similarly, the rule 5.1 proposal would expect managing lawyers to make reasonable efforts to set internal AI policies. Rule 5.3 would address instruction and supervision of nonlawyer assistants.
There is more. In May 2026, the Board of Trustees approved an updated version of the State Bar’s Practical Guidance on generative AI. It now speaks to agentic AI tools as well.
So the California AI rules for lawyers will keep growing after January. Because of that, write your firm policy in a way that is easy to update.
A Checklist for California Lawyers Using AI Before 2027
You don’t need a 40-page manual to meet the California AI rules for lawyers. You need a short list that people will follow.
- List every AI tool your team uses. Include the ones built into research and word-processing software.
- Read the data terms for each tool. Who can see your inputs, and for how long?
- Decide which information never goes into which tool.
- Add a personal citation check by the responsible attorney to your filing checklist.
- Draft disclosure language for California court filings.
- Train everyone who touches a file, including staff.
- Ask outside vendors how they protect the case details you send them.
Where Process Server One Fits
Some parts of litigation can’t go to software at all. Someone has to walk up to a door, hand over the papers and then sign a proof of service. People do that work, and it’s what we do.
Process Server One has more than 30 years of experience and serves legal papers in all 50 states. In addition, our California process servers cover all 58 counties. Here is how we support attorneys:
- Process service. You can request rush or same-day service when a deadline is close. After service, we email your Proof of Service. If you also want us to file it with the court, tell us when you place the order, since that is an added service.
- E-filing. Our portal reaches the California superior courts that allow or mandate e-filing. We return file-stamped conformed copies of successful filings. Federal courts are not part of the portal.
- Subpoena preparation. We prepare and serve trial, deposition and records subpoenas.
- Court records research. We can complete most court research within 3 to 5 business days.
One thing we want to be clear about, though. We serve and file what you send us. Verifying citations and making the AI disclosure stay with the responsible attorney.
Need a refresher on who may serve papers here? Then read our guide to California’s registered process server rules.
Frequently Asked Questions
When Do the California AI Rules for Lawyers Take Effect?
SB 574 takes effect on January 1, 2027. The State Bar’s proposed ethics amendments have no effective date yet, because the California Supreme Court must approve them first.
Do the California AI Rules Stop Lawyers From Using AI?
No. You can still use AI for research and drafting. However, you can’t delegate the practice of law to it, and you remain responsible for the result.
What Happens if a Filing Contains an Unverified Citation?
The court may impose sanctions under section 128.7 after notice and a chance to respond. Still, the 21-day safe harbor gives counsel time to withdraw or correct the paper.
Get Your Papers Served While You Get Ready for 2027
The California AI rules for lawyers add new steps to every filing. Service of process shouldn’t add more stress on top of that. So let us handle the legwork while you handle the law.
Call Process Server One at (855) 545-1303, request a free quote, or submit your process service request online today.
