AI Rules for Lawyers in California 2026

California's governing document is the Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law, issued by the State Bar's Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct, known as COPRAC. The committee first issued it in November 2023. The Board of Trustees approved an updated version in May 2026 that supersedes the earlier text and, at the request of the California Supreme Court, addresses agentic AI.

The guidance is not a numbered ethics opinion. It applies existing duties to AI use. A lawyer remains fully responsible for any output produced with AI, and professional judgment may not be delegated to a tool. On competence, the lawyer must develop a reasonable understanding of the system and independently review every output. On confidentiality, a lawyer may not enter confidential client information into a tool that poses a material confidentiality risk absent the client's informed consent. On fees, a lawyer may bill for time actually spent drafting prompts and reviewing output, but not for time the tool saved. On candor, the duty to verify citations to the tribunal may not be delegated to AI.

California imposes no blanket duty to disclose AI use. The State Bar guidance directs a lawyer to consider informing the client that AI will be used, including how it will be used and the attendant risks, and states that disclosure may be appropriate where AI use materially affects decision-making. The guidance also directs lawyers to follow the rules and standing orders of each court.

Court-level requirements vary. California Rules of Court, Rule 10.430, effective September 2025, established a statewide framework, but it governs the courts and their staff rather than private attorneys filing documents. At the federal level, districts including the Central District and the Northern District have judges and standing orders that require AI disclosure or certification. The practical rule is to read the assigned judge's standing order in every matter.

California has sanctions on record. In Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P. (2025), the California Court of Appeal issued the state's first published opinion addressing AI-hallucinated citations. Counsel filed appellate briefs in which 21 of 23 case quotations were fabricated by AI tools, and conceded he had not read the cases. The court imposed a $10,000 sanction, referred the attorney to the State Bar of California, and published the opinion as a warning to the bar.

Two further California appellate opinions followed within months, People v. Alvarez and Schlicter v. Kennedy, each imposing a smaller sanction for fabricated citations. The common thread was the filing of citations the lawyer had never personally verified.

The governing rule is Rule 1.1 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct, the duty of competence. California reads competence to include staying abreast of the benefits and risks of relevant technology, which encompasses AI. The State Bar guidance frames two obligations. First, the lawyer must develop a reasonable understanding of the tool's capabilities, data sources, limitations, and risks before use. Second, the lawyer must review, verify, and correct every AI output through independent professional judgment. Proposed amendments would name AI in Rule 1.1, but they are not yet in effect as of June 2026.

Active California lawyers must complete 25 hours of Minimum Continuing Legal Education in each three-year compliance period, including at least 1 hour on technology in the practice of law. There is no standalone AI-specific requirement. Training on AI tools used in practice, such as AI in legal research, can satisfy the technology hour, but the State Bar does not mandate an AI course.