Law / United States / California

Attorney, Court Filing and Arbitrator Generative AI Duties (SB 574)

Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code Section 6068.1 (SB 574, Ch. 858, Stats. 2026)

An AI sector rules rule binding private bodies.

Obligation class

Prohibition, Disclosure

As of 15 October 2026.

What it requires

• If you are an attorney, do not delegate the practice of law to generative artificial intelligenceNIST AI RMFMAP 3.3
• If you are an attorney who uses generative AI to assist in the practice of law, do not enter confidential, personal identifying, or other nonpublic information into a generative AI system unless access to what you input is restricted to you and persons you authorize under obligations to protect its confidentialityNIST AI RMFMEASURE 2.10
• Take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of generative AI outputs, including all case and statutory citations, and to correct any erroneous or hallucinated output in any material you useNIST AI RMFMAP 3.5
• Disclose the use of generative AI to the court for all documents you submit to the court, and consider whether to disclose its use if it is used to create content provided to the publicNIST AI RMFMEASURE 2.8
• Do not file a brief, pleading, motion, or other paper in any court that contains a citation you have not personally verified, including a citation provided by generative AINIST AI RMFMAP 3.5
• If you are an arbitrator, do not delegate any part of your decisionmaking process to any generative AI tool, and do not rely on information generated by generative AI outside the record without making appropriate disclosures to the parties beforehand and, as far as practical, allowing them to comment on its useNIST AI RMFMAP 3.3NIST AI RMFMEASURE 2.8

These lines are LexLint's reading of the law's text, as of 15 October 2026.

In the frameworks

NIST AI RMF

• MAP 3.3Targeted application scope is specified and documented based on the system’s capability, established context, and AI system categorization.
• MAP 3.5Processes for human oversight are defined, assessed, and documented in accordance with organizational policies from the GOVERN function.
• MEASURE 2.8Risks associated with transparency and accountability – as identified in the MAP function – are examined and documented.
• MEASURE 2.10Privacy risk of the AI system – as identified in the MAP function – is examined and documented.

NIST AI 600-1

• GAI-RISK-07Human-AI Configuration
• GAI-RISK-08Information Integrity
• GAI-RISK-11Obscene, Degrading, and/or Abusive Content

MIT mitigations Draft

• 1.5Safety Decision Frameworks
• 3.3Access Management
• 4.1System Documentation
• 4.2Risk Disclosure
• 4.6User Rights & Recourse

NIST Privacy Framework

• CT.PO-P2Policies, processes, and procedures for enabling data review, transfer, sharing or disclosure, alteration, and deletion are established and in place (e.g., to maintain data quality, manage data retention).

FINOS AIGF

• AIR-PREV-005System Acceptance Testing
• AIR-DET-021Agent Decision Audit and Explainability

ETSI EN 304 223

• 5.1.2-1Business need and security risks written down and assessed before deciding to build an AI system.
• 5.1.3-2Threats developers cannot resolve are passed to operators and on to end-users.
• 5.1.4-5End-users told which uses of the system are prohibited.
• 5.3.1-1Users told where and how their data is used, accessed and stored, with developers informing operators.
• 5.3.1-2.1That guidance covers proper use, limits and likely failure modes.

Our reading of where this law's duties sit in each framework, and in the NIST AI RMF, line by line beside each duty above. It never says that running a control meets the law. How we read a framework against the law

Identifiers refer to ETSI EN 304 223 V2.1.1 (2025-12), © ETSI 2025, all rights reserved. ETSI owns the standard; no ETSI text (titles or sentences) is reproduced here. The standard is free to download from ETSI.

Who enforces it

When LexLint raises it

When your app profile says your app generates content with AI or makes justice decisions.

Back to the example  ·  Lint your app