California Rule of Court 10.430: What the First State Court AI Rule Requires

Short answer: California Rule of Court 10.430, effective September 1, 2025, required every court that does not ban generative AI to adopt a use policy by December 15, 2025. It governs court staff and judicial officers. It imposes no filing duty on attorneys.

Rule 10.430 is regularly described as “California’s AI rule for lawyers.” It is not. It sits in Title 10 of the California Rules of Court, the judicial administration rules, and every obligation in it runs to a court. That distinction matters now more than it did a year ago, because the Legislature has since moved on attorney obligations separately, and the two regimes are easy to blend. This piece separates them.

What does California Rule of Court 10.430 require?

Subdivision (b) is the operative command: a court that does not prohibit generative AI use by court staff or judicial officers “must adopt a generative AI use policy by December 15, 2025.” The rule reaches the superior courts, the Courts of Appeal, and the Supreme Court. Subdivision (c) sets scope: the policy covers court staff use for any purpose and use “by judicial officers for any task outside their adjudicative role.” Subdivision (d) then lists six things every policy must contain.

The definitions in (a) do real work. “Court staff” is broad: “all employees, contractors, volunteers, and any other persons working for or on behalf of the court.” “Generative artificial intelligence” means “a computer-based system that uses machine learning or similar techniques to produce new content.” A “public generative AI system” is one “that allows anyone other than court staff or judicial officers to access the data” the court inputs. The confidentiality bar in (d)(1) is keyed to that last definition.

Rule 10.430 operative language, subdivision by subdivision

Provision	Operative language (quoted)	Source
10.430(b) Policy mandate	“must adopt a generative AI use policy by December 15, 2025”	courts.ca.gov, rule 10.430
10.430(c) Judicial officer scope	“by judicial officers for any task outside their adjudicative role.”	courts.ca.gov, rule 10.430
10.430(d)(1) Confidentiality	“Prohibit the entry of confidential, personal identifying, or other nonpublic information” into public generative AI systems	courts.ca.gov, rule 10.430
10.430(d)(3) Accuracy	“take reasonable steps to verify that the material is accurate”	courts.ca.gov, rule 10.430
10.430(d)(4) Bias	“remove any biased, offensive, or harmful content in any material used.”	courts.ca.gov, rule 10.430
10.430(d)(5) Disclosure	Required where the final version of a work “provided to the public” “consists entirely of generative AI outputs”; the label must describe how AI was used and “identifies the system used.”	courts.ca.gov, rule 10.430
10.430(d)(6) Compliance	“Require compliance with all applicable laws, court policies, and ethical and professional conduct rules”	courts.ca.gov, rule 10.430
Advisory Committee Comment	Courts “may make their policy more restrictive than the rule requires”	courts.ca.gov, rule 10.430
Standard 10.80(b)(5) (judges, adjudicative work)	“Should consider whether to disclose the use of generative AI if it is used to create content provided to the public.”	courts.ca.gov, standard 10.80

Two features of the table deserve attention. First, the disclosure duty in (d)(5) is narrow: it is triggered only when a public-facing court work consists entirely of AI output. A court self-help page drafted with AI and then edited by staff is outside it by its terms. Second, adjudicative use by judges is carved out of 10.430 altogether and handled by Standard 10.80 of the Standards of Judicial Administration, which is advisory (“should”) rather than mandatory. The Advisory Committee Comment says so directly: standard 10.80 “covers the use of generative AI by judicial officers for any task within their adjudicative role.”

Does Rule 10.430 require attorneys to disclose AI use in filings?

No. Nothing in the text of 10.430 is addressed to attorneys, self-represented parties, or the papers they file. It does not create a certification, a disclosure on the caption page, or a verification declaration. Two caveats keep that answer honest.

The first is the Comment: because a court may make its policy “more restrictive than the rule requires,” read your court’s adopted policy and the assigned judge’s standing orders rather than the statewide rule alone. Our AI disclosure orders tracker for California and New York covers the judge-level layer.

The second is statutory and separate from the Rules of Court. Holland & Knight and Ropes & Gray both report that Governor Newsom signed SB 574 on September 30, 2026, effective January 1, 2027, adding Business and Professions Code section 6068.1 and amending Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, with both firms describing a personal citation-verification requirement for California filings and a duty to disclose generative AI use to the court. We have not quoted the enacted language here. The codified text was not yet available from the sources we use for California statutes, and the secondary summaries we read did not agree on every section number. Treat SB 574 as a separate regime with its own effective date, and do not read its duties back into Rule 10.430. We will cover the enacted text once it can be confirmed against two independent code sources.

Rule 10.430 timeline: a worked date count

The rule took effect September 1, 2025. Counting forward to the December 15, 2025 policy deadline: 30 days to October 1, 61 to November 1, 91 to December 1, and 105 to December 15. Courts had 105 calendar days to adopt a policy or a prohibition.

Now apply it to a live file. Say you are filing an opposition in a California superior court on Friday, December 18, 2026, and a reply in the same matter on Monday, January 4, 2027. For the December filing, the statewide rules governing AI use in the courthouse are 10.430 and Standard 10.80, plus whatever that court’s adopted policy and the judge’s orders add; 10.430 itself puts nothing on your papers. For the January filing, the reported SB 574 effective date of January 1, 2027 falls three days before the reply is due. Calendar that date now: from today, October 11, 2026, it is 82 days away (20 remaining in October, 30 in November, 31 in December, plus January 1).

Drafting-ready text: a voluntary citation verification paragraph

Rule 10.430 does not require this. Some judges’ orders do, and New York’s model rule (below) builds the same certification into the signature. A short, accurate paragraph costs nothing and answers the question before a judge asks it. Adapt to your court’s form and the judge’s order:

DECLARATION OF [NAME] RE: VERIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES

I, [Name], declare:

1. I am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of California and
   counsel of record for [Party] in this action. I have personal
   knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration.

2. I have personally read each case, statute, rule, and other
   authority cited in [title of brief], filed [date], in the version
   cited, and I have confirmed that each citation exists, that the
   reporter, volume, page, and pin cite are correct, and that each
   authority supports the proposition for which it is cited.

3. [If applicable:] A generative artificial intelligence tool,
   [name of tool], was used in [describe task, e.g., preparing a first
   draft of the statement of facts]. All output was reviewed and
   verified by me as described in paragraph 2.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on [date]
at [city], California.

______________________
[Name]

Paragraph 3 is optional and should match any disclosure the court or judge requires. If the court’s adopted policy or the judge’s order prescribes specific wording, use that wording instead. For the verification workflow behind paragraph 2, see our pre-filing citation verification protocol.

How New York, federal, and bankruptcy courts compare

New York state courts. 22 NYCRR Part 161, effective June 1, 2026 per the New York State Bar Association, applies to “all courts of the Unified Court System, in both civil and criminal cases.” Unlike 10.430, it speaks to filers directly. Section 161.3 states that attorneys and parties “should not be required, upon submitting papers, to disclose to the court that they have used AI.” Section 161.4 lets a court adopt a part rule and encourages use of the Appendix A model rule, under which the filer “is required to carefully review the paper and independently ensure that it contains no fabricated or fictitious cases,” and “By signing such paper, an attorney or party certifies that such a review has been conducted.” (nycourts.gov, Part 161.)

Federal district courts. No Federal Rule of Civil Procedure is AI-specific. The duty comes from Rule 11(b): “By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper,” counsel certifies that “the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law.” Under 11(c)(3), the court “On its own” may order counsel to show cause. Our Rule 11 and the AI-generated brief piece covers why the safe harbor rarely helps. (law.cornell.edu, FRCP 11.)

Bankruptcy courts. Bankruptcy Rule 9011(b) tracks Rule 11 for “a petition, pleading, written motion, or other document,” including the same “warranted by existing law” certification. The current text reflects the stylistic restyling effective December 1, 2024. (law.cornell.edu, FRBP 9011.)

Keep the categories apart. Rule 10.430 is court administration. Part 161 and the federal and bankruptcy signature rules are filer obligations enforced by sanctions in the case. Professional discipline and malpractice exposure are separate questions again; the California version of the sanctions question is covered in our CCP 128.7 safe harbor article.

Pre-filing checklist for California AI policies

• Pull the adopted generative AI use policy for the specific court where you are filing; 10.430 lets each court go further than the statewide floor.
• Read the assigned judge’s standing order or courtroom rules for any AI disclosure or certification requirement.
• Confirm whether the filing date falls on or after January 1, 2027, the reported effective date of SB 574, and check the enacted text before relying on any summary.
• Personally read every authority cited, in the version cited, and confirm pin cites and propositions.
• Do not put client confidential or sealed material into a public AI system; the court’s own (d)(1) standard is a sensible floor for your firm too.
• If you file in New York, check whether the part has adopted the Appendix A model rule, because the signature itself then carries a review certification.
• In federal and bankruptcy court, check the district’s local rules and the judge’s individual practices, then treat the Rule 11 or Rule 9011 certification as the controlling duty.
• Keep a citation log for the file showing who verified what and when.

Drafting that is compliant with local AI policies

LegalBriefsUSA drafts California motions, oppositions, and appellate briefs built to the policy of the specific court and the order of the assigned judge, with every authority read and logged before the draft reaches you. If your next filing lands near the January 1, 2027 change, we can deliver the brief with a verification log and a declaration paragraph keyed to that court’s requirements, ready for your review and signature.

Authorities cited

California Rules of Court, rule 10.430, subdivisions (a) through (d) and Advisory Committee Comment, read twice at courts.ca.gov on October 11, 2026, with key quotations matching across both reads. Standard 10.80, California Standards of Judicial Administration, read at courts.ca.gov. 22 NYCRR Part 161, sections 161.1 through 161.4 and Appendix A, read at nycourts.gov; effective date from nysba.org because the court’s page does not state one. FRCP 11(b), 11(b)(2), and 11(c)(3), and FRBP 9011(b), read at law.cornell.edu. SB 574 (2026): signing date and effective date taken from Holland & Knight and Ropes & Gray client alerts, which agree; operative statutory language deliberately not quoted because the codified text could not be confirmed from two independent code sources, and earlier secondary summaries described different section lists. Left out for lack of verification: the content of any individual California court’s adopted AI policy; individual judges’ California AI orders; any case law; any pending federal rulemaking on AI.

LegalBriefsUSA.com provides drafting and research support to licensed attorneys and law firms. This article is written for attorneys, is not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship.