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 is a partner at Morrison Foerster and co-Managing Partner of the firm’s London office.
Live Video-Broadcast: December 14, 2026
Sign-up for a law firm subscription plan and each attorney in the firm receives free access to all CLE Programs
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:
This course is co-sponsored with myLawCLE.
Date / Time: December 14, 2026
Closed-captioning available
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved via Attorney Submission
2 General Hours
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 Substantive
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)
No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2.4 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
120 General minutes
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Not Eligible
2 General Hours
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Approved via Attorney Submission
2 Law & Legal Hours
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2.4 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General