CA SB 574
enactedAttorneys, arbitrators, judicial officers, and alternative resolution providers.
California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · upper
Subscribe in a feed reader. The feed covers recorded actions from the last 30 days; Bill Commons may record an action after it happened at the legislature.
Quick answers
Did CA SB 574 pass?
Yes. CA SB 574 has been enacted into law. Latest recorded action (2026-09-30): Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 858, Statutes of 2026.
What is CA SB 574 about?
Existing law, the State Bar Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of attorneys by the State Bar of California, a public corporation. The act requires an attorney to strictly maintain client confidences and to preserve client secrets at their own peril. This bill would prohibit an attorney from delegating the practice of law to generative artificial intelligence. The bill would require an attorney who uses generative artificial intelligence to assist in the practice of law to, among other things, not enter confidential, personal identifying, and other nonpublic information into a generative artificial intelligence system, as specified. The bill would also require an attorney to take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of generative artificial intelligence outputs and to correct any erroneous or hallucinated output in any material used by the attorney. Existing law requires every pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper to be signed by the attorney of record, or if a party is unrepresented, by the party, thereby certifying to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief that it is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose and that the claims, defenses, and legal and factual contentions are warranted, as specified. This bill would prohibit a brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court from containing any citations that an attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally verified, including any citation provided by generative artificial intelligence. Existing law, the California Arbitration Act, provides a statutory framework for the enforcement of contractual arbitration under California law. The act establishes that a written agreement to submit a present or future controversy to arbitration is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable, except as specified. The act defines a neutral arbitrator as one who is selected jointly by the parties or by the parties' arbitrators, or is appointed by the court if the parties or their arbitrators cannot jointly select an arbitrator. The act requires a person selected to serve as a neutral arbitrator to disclose all matters that could cause a person aware of the facts to reasonably entertain a doubt as to the proposed neutral arbitrator's impartiality. This bill would prohibit an arbitrator from delegating any part of their decisionmaking process to any generative artificial intelligence tool, and would prohibit an arbitrator from relying on information generated by generative artificial intelligence outside the record without making appropriate disclosures to the parties beforehand, as specified. The California Constitution establishes the Judicial Council, and requires the Judicial Council to adopt rules for court administration, practice, and procedure, and to undertake certain responsibilities with regard to court facilities. This bill would require the Judicial Council to publicly revisit a specified standard of judicial administration to incorporate any necessary changes reflecting the further development of generative artificial intelligence. Existing law requires the State Bar to create a program to certify alternative resolution firms, providers, or practitioners. Existing law requires the program to include procedures to verify, among other things, that a firm, provider, or practitioner has procedures in place for persons to make complaints regarding the failure of an arbitrator or mediator of the firm, provider, or practitioner to comply with ethical standards, as applicable, and procedures to remedy failures of arbitrators or mediators to comply with those standards. This bill would instead require the State Bar to adopt procedures for the State Bar or a professional organization to receive, investigate, and resolve any complaints that a certified firm, provider, or practitioner failed to comply with the applicable ethical standards of conduct, as specified. The bill would require complaint proceedings to occur in private and be confidential. After a decision on a complaint, the bill would authorize the State Bar to publicly disclose information or records concerning complaint proceedings that do not reveal confidential or privileged communications. The bill would exempt information, records, or communications provided under these provisions from disclosure under the Public Records Act. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
Who sponsors CA SB 574?
Umberg is the primary sponsor of CA SB 574, joined by 1 cosponsor.
Description
Existing law, the State Bar Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of attorneys by the State Bar of California, a public corporation. The act requires an attorney to strictly maintain client confidences and to preserve client secrets at their own peril. This bill would prohibit an attorney from delegating the practice of law to generative artificial intelligence. The bill would require an attorney who uses generative artificial intelligence to assist in the practice of law to, among other things, not enter confidential, personal identifying, and other nonpublic information into a generative artificial intelligence system, as specified. The bill would also require an attorney to take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of generative artificial intelligence outputs and to correct any erroneous or hallucinated output in any material used by the attorney. Existing law requires every pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper to be signed by the attorney of record, or if a party is unrepresented, by the party, thereby certifying to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief that it is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose and that the claims, defenses, and legal and factual contentions are warranted, as specified. This bill would prohibit a brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court from containing any citations that an attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally verified, including any citation provided by generative artificial intelligence. Existing law, the California Arbitration Act, provides a statutory framework for the enforcement of contractual arbitration under California law. The act establishes that a written agreement to submit a present or future controversy to arbitration is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable, except as specified. The act defines a neutral arbitrator as one who is selected jointly by the parties or by the parties' arbitrators, or is appointed by the court if the parties or their arbitrators cannot jointly select an arbitrator. The act requires a person selected to serve as a neutral arbitrator to disclose all matters that could cause a person aware of the facts to reasonably entertain a doubt as to the proposed neutral arbitrator's impartiality. This bill would prohibit an arbitrator from delegating any part of their decisionmaking process to any generative artificial intelligence tool, and would prohibit an arbitrator from relying on information generated by generative artificial intelligence outside the record without making appropriate disclosures to the parties beforehand, as specified. The California Constitution establishes the Judicial Council, and requires the Judicial Council to adopt rules for court administration, practice, and procedure, and to undertake certain responsibilities with regard to court facilities. This bill would require the Judicial Council to publicly revisit a specified standard of judicial administration to incorporate any necessary changes reflecting the further development of generative artificial intelligence. Existing law requires the State Bar to create a program to certify alternative resolution firms, providers, or practitioners. Existing law requires the program to include procedures to verify, among other things, that a firm, provider, or practitioner has procedures in place for persons to make complaints regarding the failure of an arbitrator or mediator of the firm, provider, or practitioner to comply with ethical standards, as applicable, and procedures to remedy failures of arbitrators or mediators to comply with those standards. This bill would instead require the State Bar to adopt procedures for the State Bar or a professional organization to receive, investigate, and resolve any complaints that a certified firm, provider, or practitioner failed to comply with the applicable ethical standards of conduct, as specified. The bill would require complaint proceedings to occur in private and be confidential. After a decision on a complaint, the bill would authorize the State Bar to publicly disclose information or records concerning complaint proceedings that do not reveal confidential or privileged communications. The bill would exempt information, records, or communications provided under these provisions from disclosure under the Public Records Act. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
- Introduced
- 2025-02-20
- Latest action
- 2026-09-30 — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 858, Statutes of 2026.
- Bill type
- bill
- Last updated
- —
Subjects
Sponsors
- Umbergauthor
- Macedocoauthor
Committees
Not provided by source.
Action timeline
Newest first
2026-09-30
Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 858, Statutes of 2026.
became-law
2026-09-30
Approved by the Governor.
executive-signature
2026-09-09
Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 2 p.m.
executive-receipt
2026-08-31
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate.
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2026-08-31
In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
2026-08-31
Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 39. Noes 0.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
amendment-passage,committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2026-08-31
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 75. Noes 0. Page 6981.) Ordered to the Senate.
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2026-08-21
Assembly Rule 69(b)(1) suspended.
2026-08-21
Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-3
2026-08-21
Read third time and amended.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-3
2026-08-21
Assembly Rule 69(b)(1) suspended. (Ayes 55. Noes 17. Page 6295.)
2026-08-17
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2026-08-13
Assembly Rule 63 suspended.
2026-08-13
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (August 13).
amendment-passage,committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2026-08-13
Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2
2026-08-05
August 5 set for first hearing. Placed on suspense file.
2026-08-03
Re-referred to Com. on APPR. pursuant to Joint Rule 10.5.
referral-committee
2026-08-03
Joint Rule 62(a) suspended.
2026-08-03
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2026-07-02
Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2
2026-07-02
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (July 1).
amendment-passage,committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2026-07-01
July 1 hearing postponed by committee.
2026-06-30
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on P. & C.P. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (June 30). Re-referred to Com. on P. & C.P.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2026-06-22
Assembly Rule 56 suspended.
2026-06-22
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2026-06-18
Referred to Coms. on JUD. and P. & C.P.
referral-committee
2026-06-18
Pursuant to Assembly Rule 51.
2026-01-29
In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
reading-1
2026-01-29
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 3323.) Ordered to the Assembly.
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2026-01-26
Ordered to special consent calendar.
2026-01-22
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2026-01-22
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 3269.) (January 22).
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2026-01-21
Set for hearing January 22.
2026-01-20
January 20 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.
2026-01-15
Set for hearing January 20.
2026-01-14
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 13. Noes 0. Page 3214.) (January 13). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2026-01-06
Set for hearing January 13.
2026-01-05
Re-referred to Coms. on JUD. and APPR.
referral-committee
2026-01-05
Withdrawn from committee.
withdrawal
2026-01-05
Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
referral-committee
2026-01-05
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on HOUSING.
amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-04-02
Re-referred to Coms. on HOUSING and L. GOV.
referral-committee
2025-03-24
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-03-05
Referred to Com. on RLS.
referral-committee
2025-02-21
From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 23.
2025-02-20
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
introduction,reading-1,referral-committee
Versions
- 02/20/25 - Introduced — 2025-02-20Compare
- 03/24/25 - Amended Senate — 2025-03-24Compare
- 01/05/26 - Amended Senate — 2026-01-05Compare
- 06/22/26 - Amended Assembly — 2026-06-22Compare
- 07/02/26 - Amended Assembly — 2026-07-02Compare
- 08/13/26 - Amended Assembly — 2026-08-13Compare
- 08/21/26 - Amended Assembly — 2026-08-21Compare
- 09/04/26 - Enrolled — 2026-09-04Compare
- 09/30/26 - Chaptered — 2026-09-30Compare
- (document, no version)Compare
- SB574Compare
Documents
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- text/html
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
Votes
Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]
2026-01-13 · pass · 13-0
Member-level votes (13)
- Wahab: yes
- Reyes: yes
- Valladares: yes
- Umberg: yes
- Ashby: yes
- Stern: yes
- Allen: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Laird: yes
- Weber Pierson: yes
- Durazo: yes
- Niello: yes
- Wiener: yes
Placed on suspense file
2026-01-20 · pass · 7-0
Member-level votes (7)
- Wahab: yes
- Dahle: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Grayson: yes
- Seyarto: yes
- Cabaldon: yes
- Richardson: yes
Do pass
2026-01-22 · pass · 7-0
Member-level votes (7)
- Richardson: yes
- Wahab: yes
- Seyarto: yes
- Grayson: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Dahle: yes
- Cabaldon: yes
Special Consent
2026-01-29 · pass · 39-0
Member-level votes (40)
- Padilla: yes
- Richardson: yes
- Dahle: yes
- Durazo: yes
- Valladares: yes
- Rubio: yes
- Strickland: yes
- Grove: yes
- Cervantes: yes
- Arreguín: yes
- Ochoa Bogh: yes
- Archuleta: yes
- Stern: yes
- Hurtado: yes
- Weber Pierson: yes
- McNerney: yes
- Pérez: yes
- Cabaldon: yes
- Ashby: yes
- Seyarto: yes
- Blakespear: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Becker: yes
- Limón: yes
- Menjivar: yes
- Smallwood-Cuevas: yes
- Gonzalez: yes
- Choi: yes
- Jones: yes
- Umberg: yes
- Wahab: yes
- Cortese: yes
- Wiener: yes
- Allen: yes
- Alvarado-Gil: yes
- Grayson: yes
- Laird: yes
- Niello: yes
- McGuire: yes
- Reyes: other
Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Privacy and Consumer Protection]
2026-06-30 · pass · 12-0
Member-level votes (12)
- Bryan: yes
- Stefani: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Connolly: yes
- Bauer-Kahan: yes
- Macedo: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Sanchez: yes
- Zbur: yes
- Harabedian: yes
- Papan: yes
Do pass as amended.
2026-07-01 · pass · 15-0
Member-level votes (15)
- Bauer-Kahan: yes
- Bryan: yes
- Hoover: yes
- Lowenthal: yes
- Ward: yes
- Macedo: yes
- Petrie-Norris: yes
- McKinnor: yes
- DeMaio: yes
- Wilson: yes
- Bennett: yes
- Ortega: yes
- Irwin: yes
- Patterson: yes
- Pellerin: yes
Related bills
No related bills recorded for this bill.
Official source
Attribution
Data from openstates_api_sync, retrieved 2026-10-01T18:16:37.777218Z
Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:
Session-wide evidence can include changes to other bills:
Use this data
Every field on this page is available from the free public API — no key or licence required. Fetch this bill as JSON: GET /api/v1/bills?jurisdiction=CA&identifier=SB 574. See the API docs or the MCP server for AI assistants.
Known limitations
- Sponsor party and chamber affiliation are not yet captured by this API.
- Committee referrals are not yet captured.
- Some documents have no extracted text yet, so version comparison may be limited.
See the methodology page for data sources and limitations.