California SB 574 and the Regulation of Lawyers’ Use of Generative AI: A New Frontier or Familiar Ground?

California SB 574 appears to signal a new phase in the regulation of lawyers’ use of generative AI. Yet many of the obligations it addresses are already grounded in longstanding professional responsibility rules and judicial decisions. This session revisits the existing framework governing lawyers’ use of technology, including duties of competence, confidentiality, independent professional judgment, supervision, and candor. Drawing on ABA guidance, state bar opinions, and practical examples, the discussion will explore how these duties apply to generative AI, where existing rules provide clear answers, and where new technologies create unresolved legal and ethical questions.

California SB 574 may represent a new frontier in the regulation of lawyers’ use of generative AI—or it may principally codify obligations that already exist. Beyond its substantive requirements, the statute raises a fundamental question about the authority to regulate the legal profession. In California, as in other states, courts have recognized inherent judicial authority over the practice of law, potentially limiting legislative efforts to prescribe how lawyers perform their professional duties. This session examines what SB 574 adds to existing requirements, the growing patchwork of judicial and legislative AI regulation, and the constitutional and separation-of-powers questions these developments raise under state law. The discussion will also address how lawyers and law firms can navigate overlapping and potentially conflicting requirements across jurisdictions.