On September 1, California's legislature approved SB 574, a first-of-its-kind state law setting rules for lawyers' use of generative AI. The bill—now headed to Governor Newsom's desk—would prohibit lawyers from "delegating the practice of law" to AI, require "reasonable steps" to verify the accuracy of all AI-generated material (including case citations), mandate disclosure of AI use in court filings, and bar attorneys from entering confidential or nonpublic information into public AI systems. 

California lawmakers are not writing on a blank slate. Lawyers already owe duties of competence, confidentiality, candor, and supervision under the ABA Model Rules and California's own Rules of Professional Conduct—duties the ABA reinforced in its July 2024 Formal Opinion 512, comprehensive national ethics guidance on generative AI in legal practice. Dozens of federal and state courts have independently adopted standing orders requiring AI disclosure and citation verification. Indeed, Wayne Stacy of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology has called SB 574 largely "duplicative" of existing ethics rules.

That assessment has some force, but it also understates what legislation adds. Court rules and ethics opinions are a patchwork, varying by jurisdiction, judge, and bar association, and they lack the uniformity and enforceability of a statute. California's legislative approach is the most ambitious to date, and whether or not every provision is strictly necessary, it sends an unmistakable signal: As AI reshapes legal practice, the standard of professional accountability for lawyers using these tools is rising.