Business and Professions Code section 6068.1 is California’s new statute governing how attorneys use generative artificial intelligence, and it takes effect on January 1, 2027. It applies to every California attorney and every document filed in court, from the partition complaint that opens a partition action to an appellate brief.
Business and Professions Code Section 6068.1 Sets Five Rules for Attorneys Who Use Generative Artificial Intelligence
Senate Bill 574, authored by Senator Tom Umberg and signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 30, 2026, added section 6068.1 to the Business and Professions Code, next to the list of attorney duties in section 6068. The new section provides:
(a) (1) Nothing in this section shall be construed to abrogate an attorney’s duty to exercise reasonable competence and diligence in the practice of law.
(2) An attorney shall not delegate the practice of law to generative artificial intelligence.
(3) An attorney who uses generative artificial intelligence to assist in the practice of law shall do all of the following:
(A) Not enter confidential, personal identifying, and other nonpublic information into a generative artificial intelligence system for which access to confidential, personal identifying, or other nonpublic information the attorney inputs into the system is not restricted to the attorney and persons authorized by the attorney under obligations to protect the confidentiality of the information.
(B) Take reasonable steps to do both of the following:
(i) Verify the accuracy of generative artificial intelligence outputs, including, but not limited to, the accuracy of all case and statutory citations.
(ii) Correct any erroneous or hallucinated output in any material used by the attorney.
(C) Disclose the use of generative artificial intelligence to the court for all documents submitted to the court and consider whether to disclose the use of generative artificial intelligence if it is used to create content provided to the public.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) “Generative artificial intelligence” means an artificial intelligence system that can generate derived synthetic content, including text, images, video, and audio that emulates the structure and characteristics of the system’s training data.
(2) “Personal identifying information” includes all the following:
(A) Driver’s license numbers.
(B) Dates of birth.
(C) Social security numbers.
(D) National Crime Information and Criminal Identification and Information numbers.
(E) Addresses and phone numbers of parties, victims, witnesses, and court personnel.
(F) Medical or psychiatric information.
(G) Financial information.
(H) Account numbers.
(I) Any other content sealed by court order or deemed confidential by court rule or statute.California Business and Professions Code section 6068.1 (effective January 1, 2027)
Senate Bill 574 also amends California Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 to require that the attorney responsible for a court filing personally verify every citation in it. Check DigitalDemocracy.org for more information on the passage of SB 574.
How Attorneys Comply With the Court Disclosure Requirement in Section 6068.1
Subdivision (a)(3)(C) requires an attorney to disclose the use of generative artificial intelligence to the court for all documents submitted to the court. The statute does not prescribe the wording, the placement, or the level of use that triggers disclosure.
The safest reading covers every document in which generative artificial intelligence played any role, whether research, drafting, summarizing, or editing. That includes the pleadings, motions, declarations, briefs, and proposed orders attorneys submit when they file a partition lawsuit or oppose one.
A short statement at the end of each document, near the signature block, works like the word count certificate required in appellate briefs. A compliant statement should:
- State that generative artificial intelligence was used in preparing the document
- Describe the general purpose, such as legal research, drafting, or summarizing the record
- Confirm that the responsible attorney reviewed the document and personally verified every citation
- Appear in each document submitted to the court, not only in the first filing in the case
For example: “Counsel used generative artificial intelligence to assist with legal research and drafting. The undersigned attorney reviewed this document in full and personally verified every case and statutory citation.”
Attorneys should also check the local rules and the assigned judge’s standing orders, which may require a specific certification. Tracking generative artificial intelligence use by matter, and adding the disclosure to the filing checklist, tells the signing attorney when the statement belongs.
Disclosing Generative Artificial Intelligence in Content Provided to the Public
The second half of subdivision (a)(3)(C) is permissive: an attorney must consider, but need not make, a disclosure when generative artificial intelligence creates content provided to the public, such as blog posts, website pages, newsletters, and social media posts.
A written firm policy that records the decision is the practical way to comply. Relevant factors include how much of the content generative artificial intelligence produced, whether an attorney reviewed it, and whether readers could be misled, since California Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 7.1 prohibits misleading communications about a lawyer’s services.
Firms that choose to disclose can add a line such as: “This article was prepared with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence and reviewed by a California attorney.”
Attorneys Must Verify Every Citation and Correct Hallucinated Output
Subdivision (a)(3)(B) requires reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of generative artificial intelligence outputs, including all case and statutory citations, and to correct erroneous or hallucinated output in any material the attorney uses. Section 128.7 already treats an attorney’s signature as a certification that a filing’s legal contentions are warranted by existing law, and California courts enforce a related truthful pleading requirement.
Courts are not waiting for 2027. In Noland v. Land of the Free (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 426, the Court of Appeal sanctioned an attorney $10,000 for briefs filled with quotations and citations fabricated by generative artificial intelligence and published the opinion as a warning. Sanctions for fabricated documents can go further, up to dismissal of a case.
Reasonable verification steps include:
- Pulling every cited case and statute from an official source or an established legal research service and reading the cited passage
- Matching each quotation word for word, along with the case name, year, volume, page, and pin cite
- Confirming each case remains good law and may be cited, since California restricts citing unpublished opinions
- Checking statutory text against the current code, including recent amendments
- Checking every factual statement against the record, including declarations, exhibits, and transcripts
Generative artificial intelligence works best as a starting point, much like the secondary sources attorneys use to find authority, but every result must be confirmed in the primary source.
The correction duty reaches any material the attorney uses, including client letters, settlement proposals, and the spreadsheets supporting a claim for partition offsets and accounting. If an error surfaces after filing, the prudent course is to correct it promptly and notify the court and opposing counsel.
Business Versions of ChatGPT and Claude Help Attorneys Meet the Confidentiality Requirement
Subdivision (a)(3)(A) bars entering confidential, personal identifying, or other nonpublic information into a generative artificial intelligence system unless access is restricted to the attorney and persons the attorney authorizes who must keep it confidential. Personal identifying information, defined in subdivision (b)(2), includes dates of birth, account numbers, and financial information.
Many attorneys have likely already complied. ChatGPT Business, ChatGPT Enterprise, and the Team and Enterprise plans of Claude state that they do not train their models on customer data by default, and Claude’s workspace screen tells users, “Workspace data isn’t used to train models.”
Individual accounts need a closer look. Paid individual ChatGPT accounts are used for training unless the user turns off the “Improve the model for everyone” setting, and individual Claude plans let each user choose. Turning training off helps, but the statute asks who can access the information, so a business plan’s confidentiality terms matter more than any single setting.
Attorneys can meet the requirement by using a business plan with confidentiality terms for client work, removing names and account numbers when a task does not need them, and keeping personal accounts out of client matters. Those precautions matter in an inherited property dispute or a claim for mortgage payments, where bank statements and family members’ addresses are routine.
Attorneys Cannot Delegate the Practice of Law to Generative Artificial Intelligence
Subdivisions (a)(1) and (a)(2) keep responsibility with the attorney. Generative artificial intelligence can draft, summarize, and suggest, but the attorney must make the strategic decisions, exercise professional judgment, and stand behind every word.
The attorney’s signature on a complaint or a reply brief certifies the attorney’s own work, not the software’s. Senate Bill 574 applies the same principle in arbitration, where arbitrators may not delegate decision-making to generative artificial intelligence.
Prepare Your Practice for Business and Professions Code Section 6068.1 Before January 1, 2027
Firms have until January 1, 2027 to put written procedures in place:
- Approve specific generative artificial intelligence tools and business plans for client work, and prohibit personal accounts
- Add the court disclosure statement and a citation verification step to every filing checklist
- Require the signing attorney to personally verify every citation before filing
- Decide in writing when the firm will disclose generative artificial intelligence in public content
- Train attorneys and staff on what counts as personal identifying information
Clients can ask the same questions. When choosing a partition attorney, ask how the firm protects confidential records and who verifies its filings, and review our tips for working with an attorney before the first meeting.
Talkov Law can help. With 11 full-time partition attorneys and experience in over 650 partition actions throughout California, our team handles every step of the process, from filing through the referee’s sale and the final distribution of proceeds. Call (877) PARTITION (727-8484) today or contact us online to get started.
