Attorneys, arbitrators, judicial officers, and alternative resolution providers.

Removed the requirement that attorneys not use generative AI to unlawfully discriminate against or disparately impact individuals based on protected characteristics (age, race, gender, disability, etc.).

Removed the requirement that attorneys remove biased, offensive, or harmful content from generative AI outputs.

In Section 128.7, changed the citation verification standard from requiring attorneys to have 'personally read and verified' citations to only having 'personally verified' them, removing the explicit reading requirement.

Removed multiple detailed arbitrator AI safeguards: the prohibition on AI replacing independent analysis of facts/law/evidence, the prohibition on relinquishing decisionmaking powers to AI, the rule about unverifiable AI sources, and the requirement that arbitrators assume responsibility for all aspects of an award regardless of AI use.

Changed the confidentiality restriction from applying only to 'public generative artificial intelligence systems' to any 'generative artificial intelligence system,' broadening the scope of protected information restrictions.

Added a new limitation (clause iii) restricting the complaint information disclosure requirement in Section 6173 to mediations where one of the parties is self-represented, meaning the State Bar cannot compel ADR providers to produce records for complaints involving fully represented parties.

Narrowed the exception allowing disclosure of confidential complaint information from 'as otherwise required by law' to only 'as required by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction,' making it harder to access these records outside formal court orders.

The requirement for judicial officers to disclose whether they or any person involved in researching or drafting an order, ruling, or decision relied on generative artificial intelligence was removed from Section 180 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Only the Judicial Council's duty to revisit Standard 10.80 remains.

New privacy protections were added to the ADR complaint process: privileged material (lawyer-client privilege, attorney work product) cannot be produced unless each privilege holder consents in writing; a complainant is deemed to have consented for material they solely hold; and all information provided must be used solely for the complaint proceeding with disclosure limited to specific parties.

A new savings clause was added to Section 1282.1 (arbitrator AI rules) stating that nothing in the section abrogates an arbitrator's duty of neutrality and duty to exercise reasonable competence and diligence.

The statutory definition of 'public generative artificial intelligence system' (which defined it as a system allowing unauthorized access to input data or using that data for training without authorization) was removed from Section 6068.1(b). The term is still used in the attorney obligations but no longer has a specific legal definition in this section.

The ADR certification program under Section 6173 of the Business and Professions Code was changed from a mandatory program to an explicitly 'voluntary' program for alternative dispute resolution firms, providers, or practitioners.

The ADR complaint confidentiality provision now includes an additional exception allowing disclosure 'as required by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction,' expanding beyond the prior exception for disclosures after a decision on a complaint.

The fiscal committee designation changed from 'no' to 'yes,' indicating the bill now requires review by the Legislative Fiscal Committee, suggesting new or modified budgetary implications were identified.

A new provision explicitly prohibits attorneys from delegating the practice of law to generative artificial intelligence, establishing a clear bright-line rule that did not exist in the prior version.

Attorney disclosure of AI use changed from a discretionary consideration ('considers whether to disclose') to a mandatory obligation: attorneys must now disclose AI use to the court for all documents submitted to the court, while retaining the optional public disclosure consideration.

The accuracy verification duty for attorneys using AI was expanded to explicitly include 'the accuracy of all case and statutory citations' in addition to general material accuracy.

The judicial officer provision (Section 180) was completely rewritten. The old version required individual judges to disclose whether they or anyone involved in drafting their orders relied on AI. The new version instead requires the Judicial Council to publicly revisit and revise Standard 10.80 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration to reflect further development of generative AI, removing the individual disclosure duty.

The bill's stated subject changed from 'relating to artificial intelligence' to 'relating to civil proceedings,' reframing the legislation as a civil procedure measure rather than an AI-specific regulation.

The definition of 'public generative artificial intelligence system' was narrowed. It now specifically refers to systems where access to confidential or nonpublic information input by the attorney is not restricted to the attorney and authorized persons under confidentiality obligations, rather than broadly any system accessible to anyone other than the attorney.

A new restriction was added to the ADR certification program: the professional organization approved by the State Bar to handle complaints shall not be a voluntary association of attorneys, limiting which bodies can serve in that role.

The fiscal note changed from 'Fiscal committee: no' to 'Fiscal committee: yes,' indicating the bill now carries fiscal implications requiring state fiscal committee review.

Removed Section 65913.4.2 of the Government Code, which would have allowed streamlined ministerial approval for single-family housing developments with units of 1,600 square feet or less, along with the associated CEQA exemption expansion and state-mandated local program reimbursement provision.

Added a comprehensive ADR certification program under Section 6173 of the Business and Professions Code requiring the State Bar to certify alternative dispute resolution firms, providers, or practitioners, including requirements for arbitrators to comply with Ethics Standards for Neutral Arbitrators and mediators to comply with equivalent ethical standards.

Added new Section 180 of the Code of Civil Procedure requiring judicial officers in both civil and criminal matters to disclose whether they or any person involved in researching or drafting an order, ruling, decision, finding, recommendation, or other determination relied on generative artificial intelligence.

Added complaint procedures allowing the State Bar or an approved professional organization to receive, investigate, and resolve complaints that certified ADR firms, providers, or practitioners failed to comply with ethical standards, with proceedings required to be private and confidential.

Added legislative findings under Section 6 justifying the exemption of ADR complaint proceedings from the Public Records Act, citing the need to protect confidentiality of privileged records and communications disclosed during State Bar investigations.

Added a new definition of 'public generative artificial intelligence system' in Section 6068.1(b)(1)(B), defining it as a system that allows unauthorized persons to access data or uses attorney-provided data to train AI without authorization.

Added fee authority allowing the State Bar to charge ADR firms, providers, or practitioners seeking certification a fee to cover program administration costs, with higher fees permitted in early years to reimburse planning and establishment costs. Prohibits use of annual license fee money for this program.

The amendment to Section 92611.9 of the Education Code, which required the University of California to report annually to legislative fiscal committees on its decisions to contract for services at newly developed facilities, was removed entirely.

New Section 6068.1 added to the Business and Professions Code requiring attorneys who use generative AI to practice law to ensure confidential or nonpublic information is not entered into public AI systems, that use does not unlawfully discriminate, that reasonable steps are taken to verify accuracy and correct hallucinated output, and that they consider disclosing AI use for content provided to the public.

New Section 1282.1 added to the Code of Civil Procedure prohibiting arbitrators from delegating any part of their decision-making process to generative AI tools, requiring disclosure before relying on AI-generated information outside the record, and requiring arbitrators to assume full responsibility for all aspects of an award regardless of AI use.

Section 128.7 of the Code of Civil Procedure was amended to prohibit any brief, pleading, motion, or other paper filed in court from containing citations that the responsible attorney has not personally read and verified, including any citation provided by generative AI. A detailed sanctions framework was added allowing courts to impose monetary penalties, attorney's fees, and nonmonetary directives for violations.

The fiscal committee designation changed from 'no' to 'yes' and the state-mandated local program designation changed from 'no' to 'yes', reflecting the retained housing streamlined approval provision's impact on local agencies.

Added new Section 65913.4.2 to the Government Code creating a streamlined, ministerial approval process for single-family housing developments where each unit is 1,600 square feet or less and consistent with objective planning and design standards.

State-mandated local program designation changed from 'no' to 'yes,' acknowledging that the bill imposes new duties on local agencies.

The new streamlined approval process expands the CEQA exemption for ministerial projects, meaning qualifying single-family housing developments would not require an environmental impact report or negative declaration.

Fiscal committee designation changed from 'no' to 'yes,' reflecting new fiscal implications of the housing approval process.

Added a reimbursement provision (Section 2) stating no state reimbursement is required because local agencies can levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to cover the mandated program costs.