California SB 574: You Cannot Delegate the Practice of Law to AI
On September 30, California enacted SB 574, and it takes effect January 1, 2027. The legislature adds to Business and Professions Code section 6068.1(a)(2), and it is blunt: "An attorney shall not delegate the practice of law to generative artificial intelligence."
The law does not ban AI, and in many ways it simply explicitly connects the duties that attorneys already have when using AI. Attorneys can still use an AI tool, they just have to use it in conjunction with their duties of competence, confidentiality, candor, and supervision. They have to make sure they are using a tool that supports their duty as an attorney under SB 574.
What SB 574 requires of California attorneys
1. Retain legal judgment (new sec. 6068.1(a)(2)). The attorney directs the work and owns the result.
2. Protect confidential inputs (new sec. 6068.1(a)(3)(A)). Any confidential information can only be entered into an AI tool if access to that information is limited to those under the same confidentiality obligation as the attorney.
3. Verify outputs (new sec. 6068.1(a)(3)(B)). “Take reasonable steps” to check any AI output, including citations to caselaw and statutes, and to correct any errors in AI output.
4. Disclose AI use to the court (new sec. 6068.1(a)(3)(C). Any document submitted to the court requires disclosure of AI use.
5. Verify citations personally (amended Code of Civil Procedure sec. 128.7 (b)(2)(A) now requires the responsible attorney to personally verify citations in specified filings, including briefs, pleadings, and motions.
Generic AI tools are part of the problem, not the solution
Generic AI tools were not built with the attorney’s duties of confidentiality, competence, supervision, and disclosure in mind. Nor were they built with an understanding of the complexities of legal citations, confirming a case is good law, or the day-to-day workflows of a litigation practice. Because of this, attorneys in California who use a generic AI tool are now required to take the often burdensome additional step of verifying outputs and, in civil court, personally verifying the citations outside that AI tool. This eliminates (and, at times, actually adds to) any time the attorney may have saved by using such a tool to draft a brief or a motion.
These tools, designed for a mass market, don’t have the built-in process and checkpoints that keep the attorney’s judgment front and center. They don’t have a back end designed to help an attorney verify and confirm output, or designed to make personal verification part of the workflow.
How Litmas AI helps California attorneys subject to SB 574
Litmas AI was built by litigators around a simple premise: use AI to help draft work product while meeting your ethical and professional responsibilities. The buck stops with the filing attorney, as it always has. Litmas AI seamlessly ensures attorneys are in compliance with SB 574 without losing the efficiency of an AI tool.
First, any judgment is the attorney’s to make. The Agentic Associate flags gaps in an argument and suggests stronger ones, then leaves the decision with the attorney. It is designed to help attorneys, not to delegate the practice of law. Every section can be edited, approved, or regenerated. Nothing moves from draft to final without an attorney in the look, aligning with new sec. 6068.1(a)(2).
Second, Litmas AI has completed a SOC 2 Type I examination and maintains HIPAA-compliant processes. These processes are independently verified by 360 Advanced, a licensed CPA and cybersecurity audit firm that has also audited organizations including Anthropic. Every document is encrypted in transit and at rest. The case file remains between the attorney, the client, and the court. Unlike other AI tools, Litmas AI does not train its model on the contents of any documents, and each case file is bound to the four walls of its own record. Litmas AI provides the confidentiality attorneys need when uploading a case file of sensitive documents, adhering to new sec. 6068.1(a)(3)(A).
Third, every citation is source-linked and checked for good law before it enters a draft. Attorney’s can open the full opinion and review the case themselves. The personal verification process required in civil filings in California is thus built into the system and is part of a streamlined litigation-focused workflow. Likewise, every factual pincite links to the exact page of the record, allowing practitioners to verify the actual record and adhere to their duties under both new sec. 6068.1(a)(B), and Civ Pro. sec. 128.7 (b)(2)(A).
Every new requirement under California’s SB574 was already built into Litmas AI’s workflows, making it an easy choice for a test run.
Read more how we built Litmas AI to keep the attorney in the loop, then book a workflow demo.