Cal. (statewide): California Rules of Court, Rule 10.430 (Generative Artificial Intellige…
Adopted by the Judicial Council of California (effective Sept. 1, 2025; court-adoption deadline Dec. 15, 2025) · Judicial Council of California (statewide)
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- California Rules of Court, Rule 10.430 (Generative Artificial Intelligence Use Policies)
- Order date
- July 18, 2025
Status and scope
Applies to the issuing body's own personnel or adjudicators, not to attorney filings, and imposes no obligation on attorneys. It provides: Any superior court, Court of Appeal, or the Supreme Court that does not prohibit the use of generative AI by court staff or judicial officers must adopt a generative AI use policy by December 15, 2025, covering court staff's use for any purpose and judicial officers' use for any task outside their adjudicative role.
What the instrument requires of its addressees
- Any superior court, Court of Appeal, or the Supreme Court that does not prohibit the use of generative AI by court staff or judicial officers must adopt a generative AI use policy by December 15, 2025, covering court staff's use for any purpose and judicial officers' use for any task outside their adjudicative role.
- Court policies must prohibit entering confidential, personal identifying, or other nonpublic information into a public generative AI system.
- Court policies must ban discriminatory use of generative AI based on protected classifications.
- Court policies must require court staff and judicial officers who create or use generative AI material to take reasonable steps to verify that it is accurate and to correct any erroneous or hallucinated output.
- Court policies must require court staff and judicial officers to take reasonable steps to remove any biased, offensive, or harmful content in generative AI material they use.
- Court policies must require disclosure when the final version of a written, visual, or audio work provided to the public consists entirely of generative AI outputs, through 'a clear and understandable label, watermark, or statement' that describes how generative AI was used and identifies the system used.
- Court policies must require compliance with applicable laws and ethical rules.
Practice areas: statewide judicial administration
What the rule requires
Rule 10.430 is California’s mandatory court-policy rule. The Judicial Council adopted it on July 18, 2025, effective September 1, 2025. It required every superior court, Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court to adopt a generative AI use policy by December 15, 2025, unless the court prohibits the use of generative AI by court staff and judicial officers. The rule’s six policy requirements (subdivision (d)) track the substantive provisions of Standard 10.80 but apply at the court-institution level rather than to individual judicial officers.
The rule’s text is mandatory (“must”), distinct from Standard 10.80’s advisory framing (“should”). Rule 10.430 governs court personnel and the policies courts adopt; it does not directly impose obligations on attorneys, parties, or pro se litigants. Filing rules for those constituencies continue to flow from the California Rules of Professional Conduct, local rules of court, and any individual chambers orders.
The disclosure requirement is the rule’s most operationally distinctive feature: when the final version of a written, visual, or audio work provided to the public “consists entirely of generative AI outputs,” the rule requires disclosure via a clear label, watermark, or statement. This is a narrower trigger than the C.D. Cal. chambers orders that require disclosure for any AI-assisted portion of a filing.
Operational implications
Rule 10.430 set a December 15, 2025 deadline for each court that permits generative AI to adopt a use policy. These policies govern how court personnel and judicial officers use generative AI in court work product, outside adjudicative tasks. They are not the source of attorney or party filing obligations. Filing obligations continue to flow from the California Rules of Professional Conduct, local rules of court, and individual chambers orders. Firms practicing in multiple California courts should expect varying internal AI policies under the same statewide rule. Review each court’s local rules and any judge-specific orders for the AI rules that apply to filings.
Companion authority
Standard 10.80 is the parallel advisory standard for judicial officers’ use of generative AI within their adjudicative role; this rule’s policies cover court staff for any purpose and judicial officers outside that role (see California Rules of Court Standard 10.80).