In February 2025, the Professional Ethics Committee for the State Bar of Texas issued Opinion 705, providing comprehensive guidance on Texas attorneys’ use of generative artificial intelligence. This opinion builds on the work of the Taskforce for Responsible AI in the Law (TRAIL), an initiative launched by the Texas State Bar’s Immediate Past President, Cindy Tisdale.
Key Ethics Opinion#
Texas Ethics Opinion 705 (February 2025)#
Opinion 705 is the primary ethics guidance for Texas attorneys using AI. It addresses the ethical implications of generative AI use across the key dimensions of professional responsibility.
Status: Formal advisory opinion of the Professional Ethics Committee
Full Text: Texas Center for Legal Ethics - Opinion 705
Core Ethical Obligations#
Competence (Texas Rule 1.01)#
Opinion 705 establishes that competence in AI use requires:
- Understanding AI capabilities and limitations - Attorneys must know what the tool can and cannot do
- Acquiring necessary skill to use AI tools effectively and ethically
- Critical assessment of all AI-generated content
- Independent verification of accuracy before reliance
Key Quote: Attorneys “cannot blindly rely on generative AI outputs but must critically assess and verify the accuracy of generated content.”
Client Confidentiality (Texas Rule 1.05)#
Given that AI tools require detailed user inputs, Texas attorneys must protect confidential information:
Risk Assessment Required:
- Evaluate risks that client information will be disclosed or accessed by others
- Review AI platform terms of service and privacy policies
- Assess whether data is shared with third parties or used for training
Protective Measures:
- Thoroughly vet AI tools for confidentiality safeguards
- Train staff to ensure compliance with confidentiality rules
- Consider using enterprise AI solutions with enhanced protections
- When in doubt, don’t input confidential client information
Verification Requirements#
Texas has clear expectations for AI output verification:
- Independently verify all AI-generated information
- Ensure accuracy and reliability before relying on outputs
- Check all citations against original sources
- Review legal propositions for correctness
Consequence of Failure: Using AI-generated content without proper verification “could expose attorneys to potential violations of rules related to fairness, honesty, and candor to the court.”
Fair Billing Practices#
Opinion 705 addresses billing for AI-assisted work:
Efficiencies Must Benefit Clients:
- When using hourly billing, AI efficiencies must benefit Texas clients financially
- Lawyers cannot bill for unworked hours, even if AI makes tasks faster
AI Costs:
- Reasonable costs for AI services (subscription fees, per-query costs) may be passed to clients
- Requires appropriate prior agreement with the client
- Must be disclosed and reasonable
Texas Rules of Professional Conduct Implicated#
| Rule | Obligation | AI Application |
|---|---|---|
| Rule 1.01 | Competence | Understand AI tools; verify all outputs |
| Rule 1.03 | Communication | Disclose AI use when material |
| Rule 1.05 | Confidentiality | Protect client data in AI systems |
| Rule 1.04 | Fees | Pass AI efficiencies to clients; reasonable fees |
| Rule 3.03 | Candor | Verify AI content before court submission |
| Rule 5.01 | Supervisory Duties | Establish AI policies; supervise use |
| Rule 5.03 | Nonlawyer Assistance | Supervise AI as nonlawyer assistant |
| Rule 8.04 | Misconduct | AI-related deception prohibited |
Federal Court AI Orders in Texas#
Judge Brantley Starr (N.D. Texas)#
Judge Starr was the first federal judge to issue a standing order on AI use:
Requirements:
- Certificate attesting: (1) no AI used, OR (2) AI-drafted text verified for accuracy
- Applies to all filings in Judge Starr’s courtroom
Significance: Set the template for subsequent federal court AI orders nationwide.
TRAIL Initiative#
The Taskforce for Responsible AI in the Law (TRAIL) laid the groundwork for Opinion 705:
Key Recommendations:
- Prioritize education and training for attorneys
- Recommend continuing legal education on AI
- Suggest modifications to law school curricula
- Recognize that responsible AI use requires knowledge development
Ongoing Work: TRAIL continues to monitor AI developments and may recommend additional guidance as technology evolves.
AI Disclosure Requirements in Texas#
Texas has not mandated blanket AI disclosure, but certain circumstances require it:
Disclosure Likely Required:
- When AI use materially affects the representation
- When client inquires about AI use
- When confidential information is inputted into AI
- When AI costs are passed to the client
- In federal courts with AI standing orders (e.g., Judge Starr’s courtroom)
Documentation Recommended:
- Maintain records of AI use and verification steps
- Document client communications about AI
- Keep evidence of verification procedures
Practical Compliance Steps for Texas Attorneys#
Before Using AI:
- Understand how the AI tool works, including its limitations
- Review platform terms of service and data policies
- Verify confidentiality protections are adequate
- Check if client consent is needed for data input
- Establish written firm AI policies
During AI Use: 6. Never blindly rely on AI outputs 7. Maintain critical assessment throughout 8. Document your use and verification process
After AI Generates Content: 9. Independently verify all citations in Westlaw/Lexis 10. Check quoted language against original sources 11. Shepardize/KeyCite all cited authority 12. Ensure legal propositions are accurate
For Billing: 13. Bill only for time actually spent 14. Pass AI efficiency savings to clients 15. Disclose and agree on any AI costs in advance 16. Ensure total fees remain reasonable
For Federal Court Filings: 17. Check for AI standing orders in your assigned court 18. Prepare required certifications (e.g., Judge Starr’s order) 19. Be prepared to disclose AI use if ordered
Sanctions and Discipline Risk#
Texas attorneys face real consequences for AI misuse:
Potential Violations:
- Submitting fabricated citations violates Rule 3.03 (Candor)
- Failing to verify outputs may violate Rule 1.01 (Competence)
- Exposing client data violates Rule 1.05 (Confidentiality)
- Billing for unworked hours violates Rule 1.04 (Fees)
Enforcement:
- State Bar of Texas disciplinary proceedings
- Federal court sanctions under FRCP Rule 11
- Malpractice liability for AI-related errors
Frequently Asked Questions#
What does Texas Opinion 705 require for AI use?
Can Texas attorneys bill clients for AI subscription costs?
Do Texas courts require AI disclosure in filings?
What happens if I submit AI-generated fake citations in Texas?
Resources#
- Texas Ethics Opinion 705 - Full text of the formal opinion
- Texas Bar TRAIL Report - Taskforce background
- Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct
- ABA Formal Opinion 512 - National guidance on attorney AI use
- [AI Hallucinations in Courts](/industries/legal-hallucinations/) - Sanctions cases and verification requirements
Questions About AI Ethics Compliance in Texas?
Texas Opinion 705 provides clear guidance for attorneys using AI, but implementation requires careful attention to competence, confidentiality, verification, and billing. Understanding your obligations under the Texas Disciplinary Rules is essential for compliant AI integration.
Consult a Legal Ethics Attorney