California: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney California firm: No bright-line rule requires AI disclosure today, but COPRAC’s 2023 Practical Guidance establishes a clear standard of care, and binding rule amendments are out for public comment (period closes 2026-05-04, ahead of a Board of Trustees vote anticipated later in 2026). Firms that cannot document confidentiality vetting, citation verification, and supervision policies are exposed on Rules 1.1, 1.6, 3.3, and 5.1 today, before any new rules take effect.

Start with: a written AI use policy, vendor due-diligence records for each AI tool, and a citation verification log for court filings.

COPRAC Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative AI

Citation: State Bar of California, Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct, Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law (approved by the State Bar Board of Trustees, November 16, 2023). Primary source PDF.

Status: Non-binding practice guidance. Not a numbered formal opinion in the CAL series. The State Bar calls the document a “living document” subject to update without versioning notice. California has the layered AI guidance that any state has, but no binding bar-issued rule on attorney AI use today.

What it requires (mandatory language)

• Confidential client information may not be entered into any AI tool without first verifying adequate confidentiality and security protections.
• Before adopting an AI tool, the lawyer must verify its security, confidentiality, and data retention protocols. COPRAC frames this as consulting an IT or cybersecurity expert. Firms without dedicated IT staff (including solos) typically satisfy the verification requirement by documenting a review of the vendor’s SOC 2 / ISO 27001 report, Data Processing Addendum, and privacy policy. The Vendor Due Diligence Checklist walks the same review.
• Each platform’s terms of service must be reviewed for data handling, third-party sharing, and model training policies.
• All AI-generated citations and factual claims require personal verification before use in court filings or client work product.
• Time saved by AI efficiency cannot be billed to clients; only actual time spent refining prompts and reviewing output may be billed.
• Erroneous, hallucinated, biased, or harmful AI-generated content must be corrected before use.

What it recommends (“should” language)

• Disclose AI use when it materially affects scope, cost, or nature of representation.
• Use AI output only as a starting point; add independent legal analysis.
• Avoid AI products that train on input data or share responses with other users.
• Establish firm-level supervision policies for staff and associate AI use.
• Pursue ongoing education about AI capabilities and limitations.

Notable gaps

Several gaps stand out. The guidance does not define which vendors meet the “adequate protections” threshold. No clear trigger appears for when client disclosure is legally required (vs. recommended). AI in intake or marketing contexts goes unaddressed. Cross-border data exposure via cloud-based AI vendors gets no treatment. The State Bar publishes no changelog despite calling the document a living document.

California Judicial Council Standard 10.80 and Rule 10.430

On July 18, 2025, the California Judicial Council adopted Standard 10.80 and Rule 10.430 of the California Rules of Court. Both took effect September 1, 2025, and courts were required to adopt internal AI policies by December 15, 2025. The rules bind judicial officers and court staff, not attorneys directly. Commentators describe Standard 10.80 as the first statewide court rule on generative AI in the United States.

Why it matters for attorneys: courts now operate under written AI policies and evaluate AI-related conduct in filings against those policies. The citation-verification language in Standard 10.80 tracks what the proposed COPRAC amendments and SB 574 would impose on attorneys directly. Courts retain CCP § 128.7 sanctioning authority over attorneys who file AI-hallucinated citations.

What federal courts in California require for AI use in filings

No district-wide AI standing order has been adopted in any of California’s four federal districts (N.D. Cal., E.D. Cal., C.D. Cal., S.D. Cal.). Individual judge orders exist in some chambers. Firms should review the assigned judge’s standing orders at the opening of each federal matter. The operative federal default is Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

What California state courts require for AI use in filings

No statewide AI disclosure rule applies to attorneys in California state court. Standard 10.80 and Rule 10.430 (above) govern court-side use, not attorney filings. Whether any individual California court has adopted an attorney-facing AI disclosure requirement under its Rule 10.430 policy is an open question; firms should check local rules at the trial-court level when filing.

What AI-related rules are pending in California?

What this means today: the COPRAC Practical Guidance is the operative standard of care now and will remain so whether or not the proposed amendments are adopted. Do not wait for the Board of Trustees vote to write a policy or a verification protocol. The amendments would convert advisory obligations into binding rule text, not introduce new obligations.

Proposed amendments to Rules 1.1, 1.4, 1.6, 3.3, 5.1, and 5.3

On March 13, 2026, COPRAC approved proposed amendments for public comment. The action follows a 2025-08-22 directive from the California Supreme Court to consider codifying the 2023 guidance into binding rules. Comment period ends 2026-05-04. Public comment page.

If adopted, the amendments convert advisory guidance into binding rule obligations:

• Rule 1.1: New Comment requiring lawyers to independently review, verify, and exercise professional judgment regarding AI output.
• Rule 1.4: New Comment requiring disclosure when AI use “presents a significant risk or materially affects the scope, cost, manner, or decision-making process.”
• Rule 1.6: New Comment defining “reveal” to include exposing confidential information to AI systems where exposure creates “material risk.”
• Rule 3.3: New Comment requiring verification that cited authorities are accurate and not “fabricated, misstated, or taken out of context.” The comment explicitly includes AI-generated citations.
• Rule 5.1: Modified Comment requiring “reasonable efforts to establish internal policies and procedures governing the use of AI.”
• Rule 5.3: Updated comment clarifying supervisory obligations extend to AI tools.

SB 574 (Generative Artificial Intelligence: Attorneys and Arbitrators)

Author: Senator Tom Umberg (D), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill passed the California Senate on January 30, 2026 and is held at desk in the Assembly as of research date. Legislative text.

If enacted under proposed B&P Code § 6068.1, confidential, personal-identifying, or nonpublic information may not be entered into any public generative AI system. Reasonable steps to verify accuracy are mandatory. Attorneys must correct hallucinated output. Court filings cannot contain unread or unverified citations (including AI-generated ones). AI use must not unlawfully discriminate against protected groups. Separate arbitrator provisions under proposed CCP § 1282.1 prohibit delegating decision-making to AI.

Risk to watch: Governor Newsom vetoed SB 1047 (broad AI safety) in 2024. Whether he signs attorney-specific AI regulation is open.

Enacted California AI legislation: AB 2013 and SB 942

Two California generative AI transparency statutes were signed in September 2024 with operative provisions taking effect January 1, 2026. AB 2013 requires developers of generative AI systems made available to Californians to publish documentation about training data. SB 942 (the California AI Transparency Act) requires providers with significant California user bases to offer free AI-detection tools and apply manifest disclosures or latent watermarks to AI-generated content. Neither statute regulates lawyer-to-client AI use directly, but both feed firm vendor due diligence: a procured AI tool’s AB 2013 training-data disclosure and SB 942 disclosure mechanism are inputs to the COPRAC Rule 1.6 confidentiality analysis. See the California Generative AI Statutes framework page for the full compliance walkthrough.

How do malpractice carriers in California treat AI use?

No California malpractice carrier has published explicit AI-specific underwriting guidance in materials reviewed for this entry. COPRAC guidance establishes the de facto standard of care under Rules 1.1, 1.6, and 3.3. Violations are the most likely triggers for malpractice exposure. If the proposed rule amendments or SB 574 are adopted, those create a bright-line statutory or rule-based standard of care, sharpening the malpractice exposure path.

California courts have already issued sanctions for AI-hallucinated citations under existing authority. In Lacey v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., No. 2:24-cv-05205-FMO-MAA (C.D. Cal.), Special Master Michael R. Wilner imposed $31,100 in sanctions on May 6, 2025 against two plaintiffs’ firms. The supplemental brief at issue contained multiple fabricated citations and quotations generated with AI tools. CourtListener docket. In United States v. Hayes, No. 2:24-cr-00280 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2025), 2025 WL 235531, the court sanctioned an Assistant Federal Defender whose motion to unseal cited and quoted a non-existent case, finding conduct “tantamount to bad faith.” CourtListener docket.

What does my California malpractice carrier ask about AI at renewal?

No California malpractice carrier has published AI-specific application items in materials reviewed for this entry. The COPRAC Practical Guidance is the de facto substantive standard the carrier or broker will reference at renewal. Plan on producing four items: a written AI use policy; vendor due-diligence records with the IT or security review COPRAC explicitly requires; citation-verification logs for court filings; and a disclosure decision log for matters where AI materially affected scope or cost. If the proposed Rule 1.4 amendment passes during the renewal cycle, the disclosure log becomes affirmatively required. Confirm application items directly with your broker.

What documentation should a California firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy covering confidentiality vetting, citation verification, billing practices, and supervision protocols. Required by implication of COPRAC guidance and, if adopted, the proposed Rule 5.1 amendment.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification log or checklist for each court filing. The 2023 guidance, the proposed Rule 3.3 amendment, and SB 574 all converge on personal verification of every cited authority.
3. (Owner: firm administrator) Training records showing attorneys and staff understand AI limitations and firm policy.

Months two and three (operational documentation)

1. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) Vendor due diligence records for each AI tool in use: data handling, model training, third-party sharing, and breach posture. Required by COPRAC and, if adopted, the proposed Rule 1.6 amendment.
2. (Owner: outside IT vendor or partner-of-record) Verification record for each AI tool’s security, confidentiality, and retention posture. COPRAC frames this as consulting an IT or cybersecurity expert. For firms without dedicated IT staff, the operative substitute is a documented review of the vendor’s SOC 2 / ISO 27001 report, Data Processing Addendum, and privacy policy filed in the vendor record.
3. (Owner: managing partner) Supervision protocol covering associate and staff AI use under Rules 5.1 and 5.3.

Months four to six (per-matter discipline)

These are recurring practices, not one-time projects: each new matter exercises them.

1. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Disclosure decision log for matters where AI materially affected scope or cost. Becomes affirmatively required if the proposed Rule 1.4 amendment passes; firms should start the log now to avoid retrofitting.

We are building practitioner resources for firms working through this list. The monthly update covers new resources as they ship.