Texas: AI Ethics Guidance for Law Firms

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney Texas firm: Texas Professional Ethics Committee Opinion 705 (February 2025) is the principal Texas ethics guidance on generative AI; like all Committee opinions it is advisory, not binding. The federal courts add a layered set of requirements. N.D. Tex. requires a first-page disclosure on AI-assisted briefs, E.D. Tex. requires all litigants to verify AI-generated content, S.D. Tex. warns that Rule 11 applies regardless of AI use, and individual judges in N.D., E.D., and W.D. Tex. require AI certificates. Counsel was sanctioned in October 2025 under N.D. Tex. Local Civil Rule 7.2 for undisclosed AI use. The Supreme Court of Texas has proposed, but not yet finalized, a TRCP 13 amendment under which a signature represents that citations are not fabricated. Texas Lawyers’ Insurance Exchange (TLIE) has published AI guidance on Opinion 705 and on privilege risk.

Start with: a written AI use policy anchored to Op 705, court-specific AI disclosure workflows for each Texas federal district where the firm files, and an attorney and staff training log.

Texas Professional Ethics Committee Opinion 705

Citation: Tex. Comm. on Professional Ethics, Op. 705 (February 2025). Primary source. The Committee issued it “in response to a request from the State Bar of Texas’s Taskforce on Responsible AI in the Law.”

Status: Formal advisory opinion of the Professional Ethics Committee. Under Tex. Gov’t Code § 81.092(c), as quoted on the Committee’s opinion index, “Committee opinions are not binding on the supreme court.” Later Committee opinions (706 through 710) do not address AI, so 705 remains the Committee’s only AI opinion.

Key points

• Competence (Rule 1.01 and Comment 8): a lawyer who opts to use a generative AI tool “must have a reasonable and current understanding of the technology.”
• Confidentiality (Rule 1.05): before inputting confidential information, the lawyer “should be reasonably satisfied that the program will not reveal confidential information to others,” and if not, “should—at a minimum—not input any confidential information to the program without client consultation and consent.” The opinion calls confidentiality among “the greatest risks posed by the unthinking use of generative AI.”
• Verification (Rules 1.01, 3.01, 3.03, 3.04): a lawyer “should always verify the accuracy of any responses received from a generative AI tool.”
• Supervision (cf. Rule 5.03): lawyers who rely on generative AI “risk many of the same perils as those who rely on inexperienced or overconfident nonlawyer assistants,” and lawyers are responsible for their work product “regardless of who (or what) does the original research and drafting.”
• Fees: on hourly matters, a lawyer “will likely be able to charge the client for the actual time the lawyer spends using a generative AI program,” but “may not … charge hourly fees for the time that was ‘saved’.” Per-use AI charges may be passed through “as allowed by law and if the client accepts that arrangement.” The opinion does not cite Rule 1.04 by number.

Rules cited

Rule 1.01(a) and Comment 8; Rule 1.05(a), (c), and (d); Rule 3.01; Rule 3.03; Rule 3.04; and Rule 5.03 (cf.).

Notable gaps

Op 705 describes itself as “a high-level overview of ethical issues.” It imposes no categorical client-disclosure obligation, though it says the lawyer “should consider informing clients about the associated risks and may need to secure client consent.” It gives no guidance on intake chatbots and does not address flat-fee or contingency billing in detail.

Practice resources

The State Bar of Texas Taskforce for Responsible AI in the Law (TRAIL) issued the 2023-24 Year-End Report, and Op 705 was issued in response to TRAIL’s request for an ethics opinion. The State Bar of Texas AI Toolkit is a living educational resource, not binding.

What federal courts in Texas require for AI use in filings

N.D. Tex. Local Civil Rule 7.2(f) (first appearing in the local civil rules effective September 3, 2024, archived edition; carried into the current edition unchanged; criminal counterpart Local Criminal Rule 47.2(e)) provides that “[a] brief prepared using generative artificial intelligence must disclose this fact on the first page under the heading ‘Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence.’” A party that files a brief without the disclosure “certifies that no part of the brief was prepared using generative artificial intelligence.” See the tracker entry.

N.D. Tex. chambers orders. Judge Brantley Starr adopted a mandatory AI certificate in May 2023, but his chambers page now states that he “no longer requires a certification on the use of artificial intelligence in light of the Court’s adoption of Local Civil Rule 7.2(f) and Local Criminal Rule 47.2(e)” (judge page). Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk (Amarillo) still requires attorneys and pro se litigants to file a certificate, together with their notice of appearance, attesting that no portion of any filing will be drafted by generative AI or that any AI-drafted language will be checked for accuracy by a human using print reporters or traditional legal databases (judge page; tracker entry). The Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District has its own General Order 2023-03 on pleadings using generative AI.

E.D. Tex. Local Rule CV-11(g), as amended by General Order 25-07 (signed October 31, 2025; effective December 1, 2025), applies to all litigants, not only pro se litigants. A litigant who uses generative AI remains bound by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and “must review and verify all content to ensure that it complies with all such standards.” The district-wide rule requires no disclosure header or certificate. Individual judges may require more: Judge Marcia A. Crone’s Standing Order MC-11 (Beaumont, signed July 20, 2026) provides that “[i]f a party utilizes AI to draft or assist in drafting a pleading, the party must include with the pleading a ‘Certificate of Generative Artificial Intelligence Usage,’” which discloses the use, certifies that the party has independently verified the accuracy of the AI-assisted portions, and certifies that the use “has not resulted in the disclosure of confidential or privileged information to an unauthorized party” (tracker entry). In the Tyler Division, Magistrate Judge John D. Love’s standing order (April 9, 2025) requires every party “whether appearing pro se or through counsel” to “include with all filings a ‘Certificate of Generative Artificial Intelligence Usage’” that discloses whether generative AI was used, the specific tool, how it was used, and a certification that the party checked the accuracy of any AI-drafted or AI-assisted portion. “The court presumes that a party who files a document that does not contain this certification certifies that no part of the document was prepared using generative artificial intelligence” (tracker entry).

W.D. Tex. has no district-wide AI rule. Judge Ernest Gonzalez (Del Rio Division) signed a standing order on June 25, 2026 that extends the AI certification requirements of Section 11(a) of his criminal standing order “to parties appearing before the Court in all cases, including civil cases.” A filer who uses generative AI to draft or assist in drafting a pleading must include a Certificate of Generative Artificial Intelligence Usage covering disclosure, independent verification, and confidentiality; Appendix A to the order supplies a model certificate (tracker entry).

S.D. Tex. General Order 2025-04 (signed May 7, 2025, Chief Judge Randy Crane) cautions attorneys and self-represented litigants against submitting AI-drafted papers “without checking the submission for accuracy” and states that a signer “will be held responsible for the contents of that filing under Rule 11, regardless of whether generative artificial intelligence drafted any portion of that filing.” It requires no disclosure or certificate. Primary source PDF. Judge John A. Kazen’s criminal court procedures (updated June 23, 2025) add an AI review requirement and incorporate the general order (tracker entry).

What Texas state courts require for AI use in filings

Texas Business Court Local Rule 10(c) (effective March 1, 2025; carried forward in the local rules revised effective July 1, 2026): “Use of artificial intelligence is not prohibited, but the filing attorney or party is independently responsible for the accuracy of all filings and must comply with all legal and ethical duties, including TRCP 13 and Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Chapters 9-10.” No affirmative disclosure or certification is required.

Proposed TRCP 13 amendment (Misc. Docket No. 26-9054). On June 26, 2026, the Supreme Court of Texas gave preliminary approval to amendments to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 13 and Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9 and 52 (order). Proposed Rule 13(c) would provide that “[b]y signing a court filing, the signer represents to the court that: (1) the signer reviewed the filing and verified its accuracy, including that the legal citations, quotations, and holdings are not fabricated,” and the proposed comment states that “(c)(1) is adopted principally to address concerns about the improper use of artificial intelligence in filings.” Comments were due by September 1, 2026. The order says the Court “will issue an order finalizing the amendments after the close of the comment period,” “may change the amendments in response to public comments,” and “expects the amendments to take effect on October 1, 2026.” As of September 28, 2026, the Court’s 2026 administrative orders list shows no finalizing order. See the tracker entry.

Technology competence. The Supreme Court of Texas amended paragraph 8 of the comment to Rule 1.01 on February 26, 2019 (Misc. Docket No. 19-9016, order): “Because of the vital role of lawyers in the legal process, each lawyer should strive to become and remain proficient and competent in the practice of law, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.” Comment 8 is the textual anchor for Op 705’s competence analysis.

Six-county district courts (Victoria region). The district judges of the 24th, 135th, 267th and 377th Judicial Districts signed a standing order on May 1, 2026, effective immediately in every pending or later-filed case in the district courts of Calhoun, DeWitt, Goliad, Jackson, Refugio and Victoria Counties. Attorneys and self-represented litigants who use any form of AI for legal research, drafting, or analysis must, before using AI-generated information in a submission or proceeding, sign and submit a certification form stating that all content “created or contributed to by generative artificial intelligence” was verified as accurate through traditional (non-AI) legal sources by a human being (tracker entry).

Other Texas trial courts have also adopted AI standing orders and local rules, including the district and probate courts of Denton County, the district courts and county courts at law of Collin, Rockwall and Wise Counties, the Tarrant County criminal courts, several Montgomery County district courts and county courts at law, the Hays County courts at law, the district courts of Bastrop County and of the 402nd Judicial District (Wood County), the Williamson County district courts and courts at law, the Panola County courts, the district courts of Angelina County and the 266th District Court (Erath County), the county courts of Gray and Hudspeth Counties, the district courts of Hays and McLennan Counties, the district courts and county courts at law of Armstrong, Potter, Randall, Orange and Liberty Counties, the Bexar County statutory probate courts, the 82nd District Court (Falls and Robertson Counties), whose rule bars AI use without a prior court order, and, in divorce and parent-child suits, the Lubbock County district courts and courts at law; see the court orders tracker filtered to Texas. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 3a(c) provides: “To be effective, local rules, forms, and standing orders must be published on the Office of Court Administration’s website.” The tracker’s Texas trial-court entries are drawn largely from the Office of Court Administration’s local-rules portal. As of October 1, 2026, about half of the documents on it were scanned images without searchable text. The tracker searched those scans with optical character recognition as well, but badly degraded scans can still be missed; treat the tracker’s Texas trial-court count as a floor, and check the portal listing for the county and court in each matter.

Has anyone been sanctioned for AI use in Texas?

Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., No. 1:23-cv-281 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 25, 2024) (Crone, J.), ECF No. 48: the court ordered counsel to pay a $2,000 penalty after a filing cited nonexistent cases (order; tracker entry).

Wilson v. KIPP Texas, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-02578 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 29, 2025) (Kinkeade, J.), ECF No. 53: “Plaintiff’s counsel used ChatGPT to generate 11 non-existent statements” in portions of the client’s sworn declaration. The court found that counsel “violated Local Civil Rule 7.2 by using generative artificial intelligence … without disclosing such use” and violated Rule 11(b)(3) (order; tracker entry).

What AI-related rules are in force or pending in Texas?

The Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (TRAIGA, Tex. H.B. 149, 89th Leg.; signed June 22, 2025; effective January 1, 2026) regulates developers and deployers of AI systems but does not contain attorney-specific provisions (bill history; enrolled text). Its deployer definition is broad (“a person who deploys an artificial intelligence system for use in this state”). The Attorney General has exclusive enforcement authority, except that a licensing agency may impose sanctions after an Attorney General finding and recommendation (Section 552.106). Civil penalties run from $10,000 to $12,000 for a curable violation, $80,000 to $200,000 for an uncurable one, and $2,000 to $40,000 per day for a continued violation. Firms deploying client-facing AI tools (intake chatbots, document portals) may wish to review TRAIGA with counsel.

The proposed TRCP 13 amendment (Misc. Docket No. 26-9054, above) is the pending state-court rule change.

TRAIL also recommended mandatory AI CLE for lawyers in their first five years after bar passage. That recommendation has not been adopted: the Supreme Court’s June 2026 amendments to the MCLE rules (Misc. Docket No. 26-9042, effective January 1, 2027; order) contain no AI or technology requirement.

How do malpractice carriers in Texas treat AI use?

Texas Lawyers’ Insurance Exchange (TLIE) has published a dedicated analysis of Opinion 705 and a separate advisory warning that client-AI communications may not carry attorney-client privilege (February 26, 2026), citing United States v. Heppner, No. 1:25-cr-00503 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2026). TLIE explicitly identifies failure to verify AI outputs and failure to protect confidentiality as conduct creating malpractice exposure.

What does my Texas malpractice carrier ask about AI at renewal?

TLIE has not published specific AI renewal-application items. Firms documenting compliance may wish to keep records that map to Op 705’s discussion of Rules 1.01, 1.05, 3.03, and 5.03, to Rule 1.04 on fees, and to the disclosure or verification requirements of each Texas federal and state court where the firm files. Firms practicing in N.D. Tex. may wish to be able to show their Rule 7.2(f) workflow and, before Judge Kacsmaryk, their certificate process. Application items are best confirmed directly with TLIE or the firm’s broker.

What documentation should a Texas firm keep on file?

Month one (foundational)

1. (Owner: managing partner + firm administrator) Written AI use policy covering approved and prohibited tools, the handling of confidential client information in AI tools, a verification step before any AI-generated content reaches a filing or client communication, supervision structure, and billing guidance for hourly matters. Anchors to Op 705 and Rules 1.01, 1.05, and 5.03, with Rule 1.04 governing the billing guidance.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Court-specific AI disclosure workflows for each Texas federal and state court where the firm files: the N.D. Tex. Rule 7.2(f) first-page disclosure (and Judge Kacsmaryk’s certificate), the E.D. Tex. CV-11(g) verification check (and Judge Crone’s MC-11 certificate in Beaumont and Magistrate Judge Love’s certificate in Tyler), Judge Gonzalez’s certificate in the W.D. Tex. Del Rio Division, the S.D. Tex. General Order 2025-04 review, Texas Business Court Rule 10(c) accuracy verification, and the certification form required by the six-county Victoria-region district courts.
3. (Owner: litigation lead) Citation verification log showing that every AI-generated citation, quotation, paraphrased assertion, and legal analysis was independently verified against primary sources before filing. Supports Rules 3.01, 3.03, and 3.04 and the verification duty in E.D. Tex. LR CV-11(g).

Months two and three (operational documentation)

1. (Owner: firm administrator) Attorney and staff training log documenting that personnel have reviewed Op 705, the relevant Texas federal court rules, and the firm’s AI policy. Carriers and malpractice defense will look for technology competence evidence even though Texas has no mandatory AI CLE.
2. (Owner: firm administrator + outside IT) Vendor due diligence record for each AI tool receiving client data: data retention, training-data status, third-party sharing, and enterprise-versus-consumer tier confirmation. Anchors to Rule 1.05 confidentiality.
3. (Owner: managing partner + billing partner) Engagement letter provisions addressing potential AI use and billing treatment of per-use AI costs (pass-through only if the client accepts the arrangement, per Op 705). Include the TLIE-flagged client AI privilege warning that client use of AI to communicate legal strategy may not be privileged.

Months four to six (per-matter discipline)

These are recurring practices, not one-time projects: each new matter exercises them.

1. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Per-matter AI use notes capturing which AI tools were used, what content was AI-generated, what verification was performed and by whom, and whether AI costs were disclosed and agreed to in the engagement letter.
2. (Owner: matter lead attorney) Judge-specific AI order check at the opening of each federal matter. Confirm whether the assigned judge has a standing order beyond the district rule (for example, Judge Kacsmaryk in N.D. Tex., Judge Crone or Magistrate Judge Love in E.D. Tex., or Judge Gonzalez in W.D. Tex.).
3. (Owner: managing partner) Periodic review schedule for new TLIE advisories, the final order on Misc. Docket No. 26-9054, amendments to Texas federal court AI rules, and any TRAIGA scope changes that reach client-facing firm tools.

We are building practitioner resources for firms working through this list. The newsletter covers new resources as they ship.