Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct Related to Artificial Intelligence

The State Bar seeks public input on proposed amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct addressing the use of artificial intelligence. 

Deadline: August 6, 2026, 11:59 p.m. (45 days)

Direct comments to

Comments should be submitted using the online Public Comment Form. The online form allows you to input your comments directly.

Background

The State Bar Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct (COPRAC) is charged with addressing matters involving legal ethics to help California lawyers understand their ethical duties. The committee’s work includes studying and recommending changes to the Rules of Professional Conduct. (See State Bar Board Book, Section 4.12 & Appen. B.) 

On August 22, 2025, the State Bar of California received a letter from the California Supreme Court directing the State Bar to consider incorporating principals from its “ Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law” into the California Rules of Professional Conduct. The Court also directed the State Bar to consider any additional guidance in light of agentic artificial intelligence tools, which can enable systems to autonomously perform tasks or workflows without human prompting. In response, COPRAC has developed proposed amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct to address the use of artificial intelligence in legal practice. COPRAC also proposed changes to the above-mentioned Practical Guidance, which were approved by the Board of Trustees at their May 2026 meeting. 

Generative artificial intelligence tools (such as ChatGPT, Claude, and Perplexity) are computer applications that can create text, images, or other content in response to user prompts. In the legal context, they may be used for tasks such as brainstorming, research, drafting, or summarizing information. While these tools can be helpful in streamlining some aspects of legal work, attorneys must use them in a manner consistent with their duties under the Rules of Professional Conduct. While the current rules already provide guidance and dictate how to use emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI), due to the increasing proliferation of AI, as well as continued examples of fake or “hallucinated” content, including outdated, incomplete, or non-existent legal authorities appearing in documents filed with the court, COPRAC proposed clarifying amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct.  

Discussion/proposal

The proposed amendments address attorneys’ ethical obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct, including Competence (rule 1.1), Communication with Clients (rule 1.4), Confidential Information of a Client (rule 1.6), Candor Toward the Tribunal (rule 3.3) Responsibilities of Managerial and Supervisory Lawyers (rule 5.1), and Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants (rule 5.3). 

COPRAC made several changes to the proposed rules in response to public comments received during the first public comment period, which closed on May 4, 2026. At its June 12, 2026, meeting, COPRAC approved the modified rule proposals for a second round of public comment.  

 Amendments to rule 1.1 would: 

  • Add a definition of artificial intelligence to current Comment [1]. 
  • Add a new Comment [2] emphasizing that, when using technology, including artificial intelligence, a lawyer must exercise professional judgment regarding all aspects of that use, including but not limited to, the inputs and outputs. When citing legal authority to a tribunal, a lawyer must comply with the duty of candor. When citing legal authority to a client or to other parties, the lawyer must verify the accuracy and existence of cited authorities to ensure the lawyer employs only those means consistent with the truth.
  • Add cross references to rule 3.3 and Business and Professions Code section 6068(d).

Amendments to rule 1.4 would: 

  • Add new Comment [5] clarifying that a lawyer’s duty to keep a client reasonably informed includes evaluation of the lawyer’s communication obligations concerning the lawyer’s use of technology, including artificial intelligence. The comment also clarifies that this duty exists through the life of the representation based on the facts and circumstances, including the novelty of the technology, risks and benefits associated with the use of the technology, scope of representation, and sophistication of the client. 

Amendments to 1.6 would: 

  • Add a new comment [2] defining “reveal” to include exposing confidential information to technological systems, including AI tools where such exposure creates a substantial risk that the information may be used in a manner inconsistent with the lawyer’s duty of confidentiality. In determining whether a substantial risk exists, the lawyer should consider the nature and operation of the technology, including whether data is retained or used for model training, the security measures in place, and whether the information may be accessed by unauthorized users or third parties.

Amendment to 3.3 would: 

  • No changes were made to this proposal after the public comment period ending May 4, 2026.
  • Add new Comment [3] clarifying that a lawyer’s duty of candor towards the tribunal includes the obligation to verify the accuracy and existence of cited authorities, including ensuring no cited authority is fabricated, misstated, or taken out of context, before submission to a tribunal, including any cited authorities generated or assisted by artificial intelligence or other technological tools. 

Amendments to 5.1 would: 

  • No changes were made to this proposal after the public comment period ending May 4, 2026.
  • Modify existing Comment [1] to clarify that managerial lawyers must make reasonable efforts to establish internal policies and procedures governing the use of AI, in accordance with the Rules of Professional Conduct. 

Amendments to 5.3 would: 

  • No changes were made to this proposal after the public comment period ending May 4, 2026.
  • Modify the existing comment to clarify that a lawyer must give nonlawyer assistants appropriate instruction and supervision concerning all ethical aspects of their employment, including the use of technology in the provision of legal services, such as artificial intelligence. 

At its June 12, 2026, meeting, COPRAC approved the proposed amendments to 1.1, 1.4, 1.6, 3.3, 5.1, and 5.3 for a 45-day public comment period.  

Any fiscal/personnel impact

None.

Background materials
Source

State Bar Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct 

Deadline

August 6, 2026, 11:59 p.m.

Direct comments to

Comments should be submitted using the online Public Comment Form. The online form allows you to input your comments directly.

For further questions, please email communications@calbar.ca.gov.