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 binding interpretive authority, paired with the most developed federal court AI rule framework in the country: three of four Texas federal districts impose binding obligations. A Dallas attorney was sanctioned in October 2025 under N.D. Tex. Rule 7.2(f) for undisclosed AI use, the first confirmed Texas AI sanctions case. TLIE’s published AI guidance is the clearest carrier signal in any state.

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. Prof’l Ethics Comm., Op. 705 (February 2025). Primary source.

Status: Formal advisory opinion. It is not binding discipline. Texas courts and the State Commission for Lawyer Discipline treat it as authoritative interpretation of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.

Key requirements

• Competence (Rule 1.01 + Comment 8): Attorneys must understand how generative AI functions, including its limitations and failure modes (hallucination, fabrication).
• Confidentiality (Rule 1.05): Attorneys must not input confidential client information into AI systems that may disclose it to third parties or use it to train models.
• Verification before use (Rules 3.01, 3.03, 3.04): All AI-generated content (citations, factual assertions, legal analysis) must be independently verified against primary sources before any filing, court submission, or client communication.
• Supervision (Rule 5.03): AI tools are analogous to nonlawyer assistants; supervising attorneys bear responsibility for AI-generated work product even when another person at the firm prompted the system.
• Billing (Rule 1.04): On hourly arrangements, attorneys may only bill actual time expended; AI efficiencies must pass to the client. Reasonable subscription or per-use AI fees may be passed through with advance disclosure and agreement. Attorneys may not attribute machine time to client bills.

Rules cited

Rule 1.01 (Competent and Diligent Representation) + Comment 8 (technology competence); Rule 1.04 (Fees); Rule 1.05 (Confidentiality of Information); Rule 3.01 (Meritorious Claims); Rule 3.03 (Candor Toward the Tribunal); Rule 3.04 (Fairness in Adjudicatory Proceedings); Rule 5.03 (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants).

Notable gaps

Op 705 is described as a high-level overview. It imposes no explicit client disclosure obligation that AI was used and gives no guidance on intake chatbots. It also does not distinguish AI-assisted research tools from generative-drafting tools 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. Its recommendations led directly to Op 705. 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

Texas has the most developed federal court AI rule framework in the country.

N.D. Tex. Local Civil Rule 7.2(f) (effective September 2, 2025; criminal counterpart effective September 3, 2024) requires that any brief prepared using generative AI carry a “Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence” disclosure header on the first page. Filing without the header constitutes a negative certification that no part of the brief used AI. Primary source PDF.

Judge Brantley Starr standing order (N.D. Tex., Dallas Division, May 2023, the first AI standing order by any federal judge nationally) requires every attorney to file a certificate. The certificate must attest either that no portion of the filing was AI-drafted, or that any AI-drafted language was checked for accuracy by a human using print reporters or traditional legal databases. Failure to file the certificate results in the filing being stricken. Judge page.

E.D. Tex. Local Civil Rule CV-11(g), as amended by General Order 25-07 (effective December 1, 2025), extends verification obligations to all litigants, not only pro se. Litigants must review and verify the factual and legal accuracy of all AI-generated content used in any filing. Failure to comply is grounds for Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 sanctions. No affirmative disclosure header is required.

S.D. Tex. General Order 2025-04 (signed May 7, 2025, Chief Judge Randy Crane) puts attorneys and pro se litigants on notice that submitting AI-drafted content without checking accuracy violates Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Independent legal judgment and thorough review are required before submission. Primary source PDF. Individual S.D. Tex. judge standing orders may be stricter.

What Texas state courts require for AI use in filings

Texas Business Court Local Rule 10(c) (effective March 1, 2025) does not prohibit AI use. The filing attorney remains independently responsible for accuracy regardless of AI involvement and must comply with TRCP 13 and Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapters 9-10 (groundless pleadings and sanctions). No affirmative disclosure or certification is required. The Business Court is newly established and further rule development is anticipated.

Comment 8 to Texas DRPC Rule 1.01 is the textual anchor for Op 705’s competence analysis. Adopted by the Supreme Court of Texas on February 26, 2019, it provides: “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.”

Has anyone been sanctioned for AI use in Texas?

Wilson v. KIPP Texas Inc., No. 3:24-cv-02578 (N.D. Tex., October 13, 2025, Judge Ed Kinkeade): Dallas attorney Javier Perez was sanctioned for using an AI chatbot to prepare a client declaration without disclosing AI use. The conduct violated N.D. Tex. Loc. Civ. R. 7.2(f) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. It is the first confirmed Texas sanctions case under the N.D. Tex. AI disclosure rule.

What AI-related rules are 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. A firm using off-the-shelf AI tools as a subscriber is unlikely to be a “deployer” within TRAIGA’s intended scope; firms deploying client-facing AI tools (intake chatbots, document portals) should review TRAIGA compliance. Attorney general has exclusive enforcement; civil penalties up to $12,000 (curable) and $200,000 (uncurable). Bill history.

TRAIL also recommended mandatory AI CLE for lawyers in their first five years post-bar passage; that recommendation has not been adopted as a rule.

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, citing a 2024 SDNY ruling. TLIE explicitly identifies failure to verify AI outputs and failure to protect confidentiality as conduct creating malpractice exposure. This is the most explicit carrier signal in any state.

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

TLIE has not published specific AI renewal-application items. It has published more substantive AI guidance than any other state legal-malpractice carrier. Op 705 and the federal court rules establish the standard of care. Firms should produce documentation that maps to Rules 1.01, 1.04, 1.05, 3.03, and 5.03 and to the disclosure or verification regime of each Texas federal district where the firm files. Firms practicing in N.D. Tex. should be ready to show the Rule 7.2(f) workflow and the Judge Starr certification process. Confirm application items directly with TLIE or your 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, ban on inputting confidential client information into non-enterprise AI, mandatory 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, 1.04, 1.05, 5.03.
2. (Owner: litigation lead) Court-specific AI disclosure workflows for each Texas federal court where the firm files: N.D. Tex. Rule 7.2(f) page-1 disclosure header (and Judge Starr certificate where applicable), E.D. Tex. CV-11(g) verification check, S.D. Tex. General Order 2025-04 sign-off, and Texas Business Court Rule 10(c) accuracy verification.
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. Required by Rules 3.01, 3.03, 3.04 and by E.D. Tex. 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 yet.
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 AI costs (subscription pass-through with advance disclosure under Rule 1.04 and 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 subscription 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 stricter than the district rule (e.g., Judge Starr in N.D. Tex.).
3. (Owner: managing partner) Periodic review schedule for new TLIE advisories, amendments to Texas federal court AI rules, additional Business Court rule development, and any TRAIGA scope changes that reach client-facing firm tools.

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