California · state bar
Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law
The guidance restates the duties generative AI does not change, among them competence, confidentiality, communication and candour to the court, and was revised at the California Supreme Court's request to address agentic AI.
Tracker entry · California
- Court. State Bar of California, Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and ConductCOURT
- Level. state barLEVEL
- Date. 2026 revision, replacing the November 2023 versionDATED
- What it requires. verification dutyREQUIRES
- Source. Read the documentSOURCE
Last checked · we opened the source on that day and drew the requirement above from its text.
COPRAC issued the original guidance in November 2023. This version replaces it, and the committee says the revision was made at the request of the California Supreme Court to address the challenges of agentic AI, which can initiate tasks rather than only answer.
The document is candid about why the duties bite. Generative AI uses large volumes of data, there is a lack of clarity about how it works even for the people who build it, it may produce output that is wrong, and information provided as an input may be used for learning and surface in another user’s answer. The guidance is explicit that many tools lawyers already use incorporate AI without being labelled that way.
This entry is descriptive, not legal advice. It records what one document says. Read the order that governs your own division before you rely on any of it, and check whether it has changed since the date above.
Back to every jurisdiction in the tracker, or readhow to check an AI citation before you file.