Although many state bar associations have issued ethics opinions or offered informal guidance concerning the use of artificial intelligence, the Golden State is setting the pace for other jurisdictions as the first state to seek to codify AI-specific language into its Rules of Professional Conduct. In March 2026, the Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct introduced the proposed changes which were developed at the request of the California Supreme Court.

The Court, recognizing recent and continuing AI developments and their risks, asked the Committee to incorporate the guidance it had previously published in “Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law” into the comments of relevant California Rules of Professional Conduct. The proposed changes are as follows:

• Rule 1.1 Competence – The first change to Rule 1.1 is adding AI as an example of relevant technology in the current Comment [1]. The second change is adding a new comment which requires that “a lawyer must independently review, verify and exercise professional judgment regarding any output generated by the technology” that is used in connection with representation of a client.
• Rule 1.4 Communication with Clients – The Committee proposed adding a new comment to address a lawyer’s use of AI or other technology as it relates to client communication. Specifically, a lawyer must provide a client “sufficient information regarding the use of technology to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation” when the use of AI (or similar technology) “presents a significant risk or materially affects the scope, cost, manner or decision-making process of representation.”
• Rule 1.6 Confidential Information of a Client – A new comment may be added to Rule 1.6 to define “reveal” as exposing confidential information to technological systems (including AI platforms) where such exposure “creates a material risk that the information may be used in a manner inconsistent with the lawyer’s duty of confidentiality.” 
• Rule 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal – The Committee indicated that adding Comment [3] to the Rule appropriately clarifies a lawyer’s duty of candor toward the tribunal as it relates to the risk of AI hallucinations. The proposed comment states that a lawyer’s duty “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.”
• Rule 5.1 Responsibilities of Managerial and Supervisory Lawyers – The Committee proposed modifying existing Comment [1] to show that any lawyers in a managerial role should establish internal policies and procedures to govern the use of AI in their firms. In other words, managing partners or committees should create the rules its team must follow.
• Rule 5.3 Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants – An existing comment to Rule 5.3 may be modified to clarify that a lawyer must instruct and supervise (read: coach) their staff concerning all ethical aspects of their employment, including when they can appropriately use AI and other technology to support the legal services offered by the firm.

As the period of public comment on the proposed amendments is now closed, the Committee may modify its proposals after reviewing the comments but expect these proposed amendments to be approved in short order.

Who will join California on the podium? Although California has taken the top spot, expect the ABA and additional states to likewise address the ethical implications of the ever-expanding use of AI in the practice of law. For now, California lawyers should keep these coming rule changes in mind as they incorporate the use of artificial intelligence at their firms.