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

Boris Segalis
Boris Segalis
Morrison Foerster

Boris Segalis is a partner in the New York office of Morrison Foerster and a member of the firm’s Cyber, Data + Privacy Group.

Annabel Gillham
Annabel Gillham
Morrison Foerster

Annabel Gillham is a partner at Morrison Foerster and co-Managing Partner of the firm’s London office.

Live Video-Broadcast: December 14, 2026

2 hour CLE

Tuition: $195.00
Subscribe to Federal Bar Association CLE Pass...
Co-Sponsored by myLawCLE
Get this course, plus over 1,000+ of live webinars.
Learn More
Training 5 or more people?

Sign-up for a law firm subscription plan and each attorney in the firm receives free access to all CLE Programs

Program Summary

 

Most of what SB 574 demands, you were already bound to do

California SB 574 appears to open a new phase in the regulation of lawyers’ use of generative AI. It may be the first statute to prescribe how lawyers use the technology. Yet much of what it addresses is already grounded in professional responsibility rules, ABA guidance, state bar opinions, and judicial decisions. The real question is what the statute adds, and who has the authority to add it.

Rely on unverified AI output and the duty of candor is in play. Feed client information into an unvetted tool and confidentiality and privilege are at risk. Leave AI-assisted work unsupervised and the supervision and billing duties follow. Meanwhile, court rules, judicial orders, verification and disclosure requirements, and sanctions multiply across jurisdictions. And courts claim inherent authority over the practice of law, which may limit what legislatures can prescribe.

You leave with a working map of where existing rules already answer the AI question and where they do not. You get a clear account of what SB 574 actually adds and the separation-of-powers argument over who may regulate lawyers at all. And you take home law-firm governance steps: AI policies, supervision of AI-assisted work, and a path through conflicting requirements across jurisdictions.

Key topics to be discussed:

  • Technology Competence
    How the duty of competence maps onto AI capabilities and limitations, and when independent professional judgment permits reliance on an AI tool.
  • Confidentiality and Tool Selection
    How confidentiality, privilege, and data protection duties shape which generative AI tools a lawyer may use and how.
  • Verification and Candor
    How accuracy, hallucination, and candor duties combine with court rules, judicial orders, verification and disclosure requirements, and sanctions to govern AI-assisted work product.
  • What SB 574 Actually Adds
    How the statute’s requirements compare with existing duties, and which potential new compliance obligations change how you practice.
  • Who Regulates Lawyers
    How state constitutional separation of powers, inherent judicial authority, and California Supreme Court precedent limit legislative mandates on legal practice, with multistate implications.
  • Firm Governance and Supervision
    How to manage AI risk through firm policies, supervision of AI-assisted work, client communication, billing, and navigation of evolving, overlapping requirements across jurisdictions.

This course is co-sponsored with myLawCLE.

Date / Time: December 14, 2026

  • 12:00 pm – 2:10 pm Eastern
  • 11:00 am – 1:10 pm Central
  • 10:00 am – 12:10 pm Mountain
  • 9:00 am – 11:10 am Pacific

Closed-captioning available

Speakers

Boris Segalis, Partner | Morrison Foerster

Boris Segalis is a partner in the New York office of Morrison Foerster and a member of the firm’s Cyber, Data + Privacy Group. His practice sits where data, technology, and regulation meet: he counsels companies on the legal frameworks that govern data-driven products and services as those companies build and scale them. His recent programs include the webinar “Practicing Law with AI: Ethics, Privilege, and the Changing Practice of Law” and a CLE panel on data rights and generative AI risk.

  • Education & Credentials

Boris earned his J.D. from New York University School of Law and his B.S. from the Georgia Institute of Technology. He is admitted to practice in New York.

  • Recognition & Leadership

Chambers USA has ranked Boris nationwide in Privacy and Data Security every year from 2013 through 2026, and in Privacy and Data Security: Cybersecurity from 2024 through 2026. Chambers Global has ranked him in Privacy and Data Security (USA) from 2013 through 2026 and, from 2025 through 2026, in both its Cybersecurity and Privacy categories. The Legal 500 US has recognized him as a Leading Lawyer in Cyber Law: Data Privacy and Data Protection from 2020 through 2026 and recommended him for Finance: Financial Services Regulation in 2025. A client quoted by Chambers USA calls him “a significant player in the industry” who “brings a really helpful breadth of perspective.”

  • Professional Involvement

Boris speaks and writes regularly on AI, privacy, and data regulation. His 2026 webinar “Practicing Law with AI: Ethics, Privilege, and the Changing Practice of Law” addressed the professional responsibility questions AI raises for practicing lawyers, and he served on the NYIPLA One-Day Patent CLE Seminar panel “Data Rights in AI – Navigating Cybersecurity, Privacy, and IP Risks in Generative AI” in 2025. He has also presented on legal considerations in data privacy and international compliance, on privacy law execution under the CCPA and CPRA, and on developments since the White House crypto report, and he appears on the firm’s DCP+ podcast, including an episode on AI and the evolution of national security policy, and its Policy to Practice series on navigating AI, privacy, and risk.

His client alerts and blog posts cover data broker laws in New Jersey, Connecticut, and Vermont, CalPrivacy’s data broker audits, the CFPB’s open banking rule, and the firm’s annual data, cyber, and privacy predictions.

  • Experience

Boris’s practice spans Data, Cyber + Privacy; Technology Transactions; Emerging Companies + Venture Capital; Mergers + Acquisitions; and Private Equity Investments + Buyouts, with industry focus on artificial intelligence, fintech, technology, life sciences and healthcare, digital assets and blockchain, data centers and digital infrastructure, and government strategies. Recent matters include advising Collibra on its acquisition of trail ML and advising StackAI on its acquisition by Asana.

 

Annabel Gillham, Partner and Co-Managing Partner, London |Morrison Foerster

Annabel Gillham is a partner at Morrison Foerster and co-Managing Partner of the firm’s London office. She practices in the firm’s Data, Cyber + Privacy group with an industry focus that includes artificial intelligence, and her recent writing examines the UK Information Commissioner’s early signals on the data protection risks of agentic AI and the future of monitoring technologies in the workplace. She describes her work as helping clients grapple with “bet the company” issues.

  • Education & Credentials

Annabel holds a B.A. from the University of Bristol and completed the G.D.L. and L.P.C. at the University of Law of England & Wales. She is admitted in England & Wales.

  • Recognition & Leadership

Lawdragon has named Annabel a Leading Global Cyber Lawyer each year from 2024 through 2026. She was Privacy & Data Protection Lawyer of the Year at the 2022 Women in Business Law Awards EMEA. Chambers UK 2026 recommends her for Data Protection & Information Law, and Legal 500 UK recommends her for Risk Advisory: Data Protection and Cybersecurity (2024–2026), Employment: Employers (2024–2026), and Technology, Media & Telecoms: IT & Telecoms (2026). She serves as co-Managing Partner of the firm’s London office.

  • Professional Involvement

Annabel’s published work includes “Agentic AI: The ICO’s Early Signals on Data Protection Risk” and “Monitoring Technologies in UK Workplaces: What Does the Future Hold?”, both in Privacy Laws & Business UK Report, along with client alerts on the UK Employment Rights Act 2025, the complaints-handling requirement under the DUAA, and the ICO’s growing use of confiscation orders where data misuse becomes a proceeds-of-crime issue.

Her speaking engagements include “When Digital Becomes Political,” “Mastering the Maze: Navigating DSAR Compliance Across the UK and EU,” “International Data Transfers – What Employment Lawyers Need to Know,” and the Global Ethics Summit on DEI Data, and she has recorded guides on hiring in the UK and Europe and on employment considerations in M&A transactions.

  • Experience

Annabel’s practice covers Data, Cyber + Privacy and Data, Cyber + Privacy Litigation, Employment + Labor, Litigation, Outsourcing, Private Funds, and Private Equity Investments + Buyouts, with industry focus on artificial intelligence and anti-bias strategy and defense. Her work is centered in the United Kingdom.

Agenda

SESSION 1 – The Existing Framework: Professional Responsibility and Lawyers’ Use of Generative AI | Boris Segalis | 12:00pm – 1:00pm

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.

BREAK | 1:00pm – 1:10pm

SESSION 2 – California SB 574 and Beyond: Emerging AI Regulation, Constitutional Limits, and Practical Compliance | Annabel Gillham | 1:10pm – 2:10pm

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.

Credits

Alaska

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through Alaska’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity.
Alabama

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Arkansas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Arizona

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

California

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Colorado

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Connecticut

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

District of Columbia

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Delaware

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Florida

Approved via Attorney Submission
2 General Hours

Receive CLE credit in Florida via attorney submission.
Georgia

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Hawaii

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Iowa

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Idaho

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Illinois

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Indiana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Kansas

Pending CLE Approval
2 Substantive

Kentucky

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Louisiana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Massachusetts

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maryland

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maine

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Michigan

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Minnesota

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Missouri

Approved for CLE Credits
2.4 General

Mississippi

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Montana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

North Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

North Dakota

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through North Dakota’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity. Section 1, Policy 1.14
Nebraska

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

myLawCLE reports attendance to Nebraska on each attorney’s behalf for all programs. Please do not self-report.
New Hampshire

Approved for CLE Credits
120 General minutes

As of July 1, 2014, the NHMCLE Board no longer provides pre- or post-approval of courses. Attendees must self-determine whether a program is eligible for credit, and self-report their attendance online at www.nhbar.org, based on qualification provisions of Rule 53.
New Jersey

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New Jersey’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity, except for the courses required under BCLE Reg. 201:2
New Mexico

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Nevada

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

New York

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New York’s Approved Jurisdiction Group “B”.
Ohio

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Oklahoma

Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General

Oregon

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Pennsylvania

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Rhode Island

Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General

South Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

South Dakota

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Tennessee

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Texas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Utah

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Virginia

Not Eligible
2 General Hours

Vermont

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Washington

Approved via Attorney Submission
2 Law & Legal Hours

Receive CLE credit in Washington via attorney submission.
Wisconsin

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

West Virginia

Pending CLE Approval
2.4 General

Wyoming

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

More CLE Webinars
Upcoming CLE Webinars
AI-Augmented Legal Workflows: A Map to Success
AI-Augmented Legal Workflows: A Map to Success Tue, November 10, 2026
Live Webcast