California was the first state to approve regulatory guidance for attorney use of generative AI, releasing its “Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law” in November 2023. The California State Bar has characterized this guidance as “guiding principles rather than best practices,” reflecting the rapidly evolving nature of AI technology.
Key Guidance Document#
Practical Guidance for Use of Generative AI (November 2023)#
The California State Bar’s Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct (COPRAC) released this comprehensive guidance addressing AI use across the full spectrum of legal practice.
Document Status: Living document intended to evolve with technological advancements
Full Document: California State Bar Generative AI Guidance (PDF)
Core Ethical Obligations#
Confidentiality#
California’s guidance requires attorneys to:
- Consult with IT or cybersecurity professionals to verify AI systems adhere to “stringent security, confidentiality, and data retention protocols”
- Review Terms of Use to understand how inputted information is processed
- Verify the platform does not share inputted information with third parties
- Confirm data is not used to train or improve the AI product without consent
Under California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.6, disclosure of confidential information to AI systems without adequate protections may violate the duty of confidentiality.
Competence and Diligence#
California’s guidance establishes a high bar for competent AI use:
Verification Requirements:
- Lawyers must “critically review, validate, and correct both the input and the output” of generative AI
- Verification extends beyond detecting false results, it requires ensuring content “accurately reflects and supports the interests and priorities of the client”
Professional Judgment:
- “A lawyer’s professional judgment cannot be delegated to generative AI”
- Judgment “remains the lawyer’s responsibility at all times”
Over-Reliance Warning:
- Lawyers should avoid over-reliance on AI “to such a degree that it hinders critical attorney analysis fostered by traditional research and writing”
Billing for AI-Assisted Work#
California’s guidance addresses the billing implications of AI efficiency:
Permitted Billing:
- Time spent refining AI inputs or prompts
- Time spent reviewing and editing AI outputs
- Actual time creating work product using AI assistance
Prohibited Billing:
- “A lawyer must not charge the client the time saved due to the use of GenAI”
- Billing for hours not actually worked violates fee reasonableness requirements
Duty to Supervise#
Law firm partners and managers have affirmative supervision duties:
- Establish clear policies regarding permissible AI uses
- Provide training on ethical and practical aspects of AI use
- Make reasonable efforts to ensure firm lawyers and non-lawyers comply with professional obligations
- Create measures that give “reasonable assurance” of compliance
California Rules of Professional Conduct Implicated#
| Rule | Obligation | AI Application |
|---|---|---|
| Rule 1.1 | Competence | Understand AI capabilities/limitations; verify all outputs |
| Rule 1.3 | Diligence | Don’t allow AI use to delay or harm client matters |
| Rule 1.4 | Communication | Disclose AI use when material to representation |
| Rule 1.6 | Confidentiality | Protect client data in AI systems |
| Rule 1.5 | Fees | Don’t bill for time saved by AI; ensure reasonable fees |
| Rule 3.3 | Candor | Verify all AI-generated content before court submission |
| Rule 5.1 | Supervisory Duties | Establish AI policies; train lawyers and staff |
| Rule 5.3 | Nonlawyer Assistance | Supervise AI as you would a nonlawyer assistant |
California Court AI Orders#
Noland v. Land of the Free (Cal. Ct. App. September 2025)#
California courts have begun sanctioning attorneys for AI hallucinations. In this landmark case:
Facts:
- Attorney used ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Grok to draft appellate briefs
- 21 of 23 case quotations in plaintiff’s opening brief were fabricated
- Attorney submitted multiple briefs with fake citations even after warnings
Consequences:
- $10,000 sanctions
- Reported to the California State Bar for potential discipline
- Required to show opinion to client and certify compliance
- Lost the underlying appeal
Significance: First state Court of Appeal opinion sanctioning a lawyer specifically for AI-generated hallucinations.
AI Disclosure Requirements#
California has not mandated AI disclosure in all circumstances. Disclosure depends on materiality:
Disclosure May Be Required When:
- AI use materially affects the representation
- Client specifically inquires about AI use
- Confidential information will be inputted into AI systems
- AI use affects fee arrangements
Disclosure Not Automatically Required:
- Routine use of AI for administrative tasks
- AI-assisted research that is independently verified
- Document formatting or proofreading assistance
Practical Compliance Steps for California Attorneys#
Before Using AI:
- Review AI platform Terms of Use and privacy policies
- Consult IT/cybersecurity on data protection adequacy
- Verify client data won’t be shared or used for training
- Establish firm-wide AI use policies
During AI Use: 5. Never input client confidential information without protections 6. Maintain human judgment in all substantive decisions 7. Document your verification process
After AI Generates Content: 8. Independently verify all citations in Westlaw/Lexis 9. Check quoted language against original sources 10. Shepardize/KeyCite all cited authority 11. Review for logical consistency and accuracy
For Billing: 12. Bill only for time actually spent 13. Don’t bill for hours saved by AI efficiency 14. Disclose AI-related costs to clients
For Supervision: 15. Train all lawyers and staff on AI policies 16. Require verification before any AI content is filed 17. Establish quality control checkpoints
Malpractice Insurance Considerations#
California attorneys should review their malpractice policies for AI-related coverage:
- Some policies may exclude AI-related claims
- Others may require disclosure of AI use
- Premium adjustments may apply for heavy AI users
- Document your verification procedures for defense purposes
Frequently Asked Questions#
Does California require disclosure of AI use to clients?
Can I use ChatGPT for legal research in California?
How should California attorneys bill for AI-assisted work?
What are the confidentiality requirements for using AI in California?
Resources#
- California State Bar Generative AI Practical Guidance (PDF)
- California Rules of Professional Conduct
- ABA Formal Opinion 512 - National guidance on attorney AI use
- AI Hallucinations in Courts - Sanctions cases and verification requirements
Questions About AI Ethics Compliance in California?
California was the first state to address attorney AI use, and its living guidance continues to evolve. Understanding your obligations under California Rules of Professional Conduct is essential for compliant AI integration in your practice.
Consult a Legal Ethics Attorney