Skip to content

Tracked Changes, Wednesday, September 30, 2026

What changed in legal AI · · 2 min read

  1. Newsom signs SB 574, setting California rules for how lawyers and arbitrators use generative AI

    Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 574 on September 30, Bloomberg Law reports. The law bars attorneys from delegating the practice of law to AI, requires them to verify every citation before filing, including AI-generated ones, and requires disclosure when generative AI was used to create a court filing. It bars entering confidential information into open-access AI tools. Arbitrators may not delegate decisions to AI.

    Source: Bloomberg Law · Read more: What should a law firm's generative AI policy cover?, How to avoid AI-hallucinated citations in court filings

  2. Clio buys Learned Hand, a maker of AI tools for judges and court staff

    Clio announced on September 30 that it acquired Learned Hand, whose platform is designed to help judges and clerks analyze matters and generate drafts, Legaltech News reported. Financial terms were not disclosed. The deal gives Clio its first product offering specifically for the judiciary, and Learned Hand's staff of 12 join Clio. It follows Clio's appointments of Casetext co-founder Pablo Arredondo and former Michigan Chief Justice Bridget Mary McCormack.

    Source: Legaltech News

  3. Harvey adds agentic search across iManage, SharePoint and Google Drive

    Harvey said on September 30 that users can now describe what they need in plain language and Harvey will plan a search across iManage, SharePoint and Google Drive without the user selecting files first. Results link to their sources, and each person sees only documents they can open in the source system. Customers turn it on through their Harvey representative. Pricing was not mentioned.

    Source: Harvey · Read more: What should a law firm's generative AI policy cover?

  4. California Supreme Court refers a firm's misquotation of its own precedent to the State Bar

    In Cervantes v. Bianco, decided September 24, the California Supreme Court found that the Riverside County Sheriff's preliminary briefing misquoted passages from Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors and misstated its holding to challenge the petitioners' standing. The firm responsible apologized and withdrew the argument. The court said improper use of AI tools apparently contributed, and referred the matter to the State Bar.

    Source: Damien Charlotin, AI Hallucination Cases database · Read more: How to avoid AI-hallucinated citations in court filings