California Courts Mandate AI Guardrails: What Rule 10.430 Means for Legal Professionals
California's new court AI policy, Rule 10.430, sets strict guidelines for generative AI. Learn what the new rules on accuracy and bias mean for legal tech.
The era of "wait and see" governance for artificial intelligence is officially ending in California's judiciary. The California Courts have adopted Rule 10.430, a new policy effective September 1, 2025, that establishes a clear framework for the use of generative AI (Judicial Council of California, 2025).
This new rule provides a decisive answer to how one of the nation's largest court systems will handle technology that creates new text, images, and code. It applies to all court staff and judicial officers in the Superior Courts, Courts of Appeal, and the Supreme Court, creating a unified standard for the state.
A December Deadline: Ban or Govern?
The policy gives California courts a clear choice: ban generative AI entirely or adopt a formal use policy by December 15, 2025.
If a court chooses to permit the use of generative AI, its policy must adhere to a strict set of baseline standards (Judicial Council of California, 2025). The rule differentiates between internal, court-managed AI systems and public generative AI systems (like ChatGPT or Claude). While the policy governs staff and judicial officers, it notably exempts judicial officers when they are acting in their adjudicative roles.
The Non-Negotiable Requirements
Any court policy allowing generative AI must include several essential provisions focused on security, fairness, and accuracy (Judicial Council of California, 2025).
• Confidentiality is Paramount: The rule strictly prohibits uploading confidential or non-public information into public generative AI systems. This includes data like Social Security numbers, sealed case data, or personal identifying information.
• Mandating Fairness: Courts must forbid using generative AI to discriminate or create disparate impacts on individuals based on protected classes, including age, race, religion, or gender identity.
• Accuracy and Accountability: The policy places the burden of verification squarely on the user. Staff and judicial officers must verify the accuracy of AI outputs and correct any erroneous or "hallucinated" information.
• Bias Mitigation: Users must take reasonable steps to identify and remove biased, offensive, or harmful content from any AI-generated material.
• Public Transparency: If a court shares generative AI content with the public, it must provide clear disclosure. This requires a label, watermark, or statement that identifies how AI was used and which system was employed.
• Ethical Compliance: Finally, all AI use must comply with all applicable laws, existing court policies, and codes of judicial ethics.
Why This Policy Matters
This move signals a critical shift from abstract discussion to formal governance. For legal and tech professionals, Rule 10.430 underscores the growing importance of trust, transparency, and accountability in all AI-generated content, especially within the public sector.
For legal tech vendors, court administrators, and policymakers, this rule offers a clear blueprint of what institutions will expect. As courts explore AI for workflows like document drafting, analysis, and research, these standards on confidentiality, bias, and accuracy will become the benchmark.
As California's courts navigate these new technological frontiers, the need for accurate, compliant, and efficient legal support has never been greater. While court staff adapt to new tools, your firm still needs reliable results.
Streamline your practice and ensure your documents are meticulously prepared. Contact Best Virtual Paralegal today to learn how our expert document drafting support can save you time and keep your focus on your clients.
#CaliforniaLaw #LegalTech #ArtificialIntelligence #Rule10430
Let's talk support
Holly A. Sheriff, MSLS, MCC, CCC, is a seasoned paralegal and a certified career and life coach dedicated to helping legal professionals and leaders achieve greater success and happiness. Using the most direct and efficient methods, she guides her clients to experience significant improvements in productivity, time management, motivation, leadership skills, goal attainment, stress reduction, and overall work/life balance.
Disclaimer
The content on this blog is provided for general information and educational purposes only. It is intended for lawyers, paralegals, and other professionals connected to the legal community in the USA.
Please note the following:
Not Legal Advice: This information does not constitute legal advice and is not a substitute for consulting with a licensed professional. Do not rely on this content to answer legal questions about specific client situations.
No Attorney-Client Relationship: Reading this blog or interacting with its content does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Information May Not Be Current: The law changes frequently. While we make an effort to provide accurate information, we do not guarantee that this content reflects the most current legal developments.
Consult Primary Sources: Practitioners must consult primary and secondary sources of state law before relying on this information for any specific client matter.
Liability: Best Virtual Paralegal is not responsible or liable for any advice or information provided by the blog's authors or contributors.
Here where to find more information
Judicial Council of California. (2025, July 18). Rule 10.430. Generative artificial intelligence use policies. California Rules of Court. https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/ten/rule10_430
