FOLLOW US

What California Workers and Lawyers Need to Know

• AI cannot be the sole decision-maker when a California worker is fired or disciplined — a human must review and verify the decision.
• Lawyers can still use generative AI, but they cannot hand their legal judgment to it, expose confidential client information, or blindly trust its research and citations.
• For law firms, California is moving AI compliance from ethics guidance toward enforceable statutory duties that could carry courtroom and professional consequences.

By Samuel López | USA Herald

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a sweeping package of artificial-intelligence laws Wednesday that reaches directly into two places where AI is rapidly changing everyday life — the workplace and the practice of law.

For workers, perhaps the easiest way to understand the new rule is this; your boss can use AI, but AI cannot simply become your boss.

Under SB 947, employers cannot rely solely on an automated decision system to fire or discipline an employee. If an AI system flags an employee for termination, misconduct or discipline, human oversight and verification are required.

Another new law, SB 951, addresses a different concern — workers losing their jobs because AI replaces the work itself. California's existing WARN Act generally requires 60 days' notice for qualifying mass layoffs, relocations and terminations.

When those job losses are caused substantially by AI or automated technology, employers will now have to identify that technological displacement and describe the job functions being automated. The state will also publish information about reported technological displacement.

California also tightened workplace surveillance. AB 1883 restricts employers from using AI-powered workplace surveillance to collect certain neural information or attempt to recognize a worker's emotional state. AB 1331 separately limits workplace surveillance, including barring surveillance of employees in workplace bathrooms except under narrow circumstances.

Then there is SB 574, which could have an immediate impact on how California lawyers and law firms build AI into their practices.

California attorneys were already subject to duties involving competence, confidentiality, supervision, candor and accuracy. The State Bar has also maintained practical guidance specifically explaining how those professional obligations apply when lawyers use generative AI. In May 2026, the Bar updated that guidance to address newer technology, including autonomous or "agentic" AI systems.

But SB 574 goes further.

The new statute expressly says an attorney "shall not delegate the practice of law" to generative AI. Lawyers may use AI as an assistant, but the lawyer must remain the lawyer.

A lawyer may use AI to help summarize records, organize discovery, develop research leads or assist with drafting. But the attorney cannot effectively tell an AI agent, "Handle this case," and surrender the professional judgment that California law requires the attorney personally to exercise.

The law also prohibits lawyers from entering confidential, personally identifying or other nonpublic information into an AI system unless access to that information is appropriately restricted. Lawyers must take reasonable steps to verify AI output and correct hallucinations or errors.

Perhaps most importantly for litigators, attorneys using generative AI must disclose that use to the court for documents submitted to the court. And every citation appearing in a brief, pleading, motion or other filed paper must be personally verified by the attorney responsible for submitting it — including citations supplied by AI.

That requirement has teeth. California Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.7 allows courts to impose sanctions for qualifying violations, and law firms can, absent exceptional circumstances, be held jointly responsible for violations committed by their lawyers and employees.

For a large firm, that likely means formal AI policies, approved systems, training, audit trails and tighter supervision of associates and staff. For a small practice or solo attorney, the same legal duties apply without an IT department or compliance team standing behind them.

Judges were already operating under separate California court rules requiring accuracy checks and policies governing generative AI. Those rules, effective since September 2025, apply specifically to judicial officers and court personnel. SB 574 instead reaches lawyers and arbitrators — and requires the Judicial Council to revisit its existing judicial AI standard as the technology develops.

The message running through California's new laws is fairly simple - AI can assist people who hold responsibility, but it cannot quietly replace the person who is legally accountable for the decision.

About the Author

Samuel López is a reporter and news correspondent for USA Herald who has reported for the publication since 2022. López is also a seasoned legal professional with more than two decades of experience analyzing state and federal litigation, legal research, complex case records and high-level legal drafting. His background provides a practical perspective on how emerging AI rules affect attorneys, legal analysts, law firms and the professionals increasingly incorporating artificial intelligence into everyday legal work.

Stay Ahead of the Story

If you value reporting that goes beyond the headline, get USA Herald's latest investigative reporting, legal analysis, national-security coverage and emerging-technology news delivered directly to you. Subscribe to the USA Herald newsletter and stay ahead of the stories shaping law, business and technology.

👉 Follow USA Herald on X at @RealUSAHerald