AI Rules for Lawyers in Texas 2026

Texas guidance comes from Opinion 705, issued by the Professional Ethics Committee for the State Bar of Texas in February 2025. The State Bar's Taskforce for Responsible AI in the Law helped prompt it.

The opinion applies existing duties to generative AI. A lawyer must understand how the tool works, verify its output, protect client confidentiality, and maintain candor toward the tribunal. On client communication, the opinion recommends that lawyers consider informing clients of the risks and, where confidential information is involved, obtain the client's consent. The opinion notes that guidance in California, Florida, and from the ABA goes further on certain points. The consistent rule is that the lawyer, not the tool, is accountable for the work.

Texas does not require disclosure of AI use as a matter of state ethics rules. Opinion 705 frames client disclosure as a recommendation rather than a requirement, and advises obtaining the client's consent when confidential information is entered into a tool.

Court disclosure is no longer only a judge-by-judge matter in the Northern District of Texas. Judge Brantley Starr's 2023 chambers-specific certification order has been superseded by Northern District of Texas Local Civil Rule 7.2(f), effective September 2, 2025. The rule requires any brief prepared with generative AI to disclose that fact on the first page under the heading 'Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence,' and treats a filing without that disclosure as a certification that no generative AI was used. Other Texas federal districts still vary by judge, so counsel should confirm the rules of the assigned district and judge in every matter.

Texas has a sanction on record. In Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. (E.D. Tex. 2024), counsel filed a brief with two nonexistent Fifth Circuit cases and fabricated quotations produced by an AI tool. Judge Marcia Crone imposed a $2,000 sanction and ordered him to complete one hour of continuing legal education on generative AI.

Texas courts have addressed fabricated AI citations at a high volume through 2026, spanning federal and state courts. In re Rosslyn2016, LLC (S.D. Tex. Bankruptcy, July 2026) drew civil contempt, CLE, and an adverse-costs order of $29,877. McCormick v. Texakoma Financial (E.D. Tex., June 2026) drew a public reprimand, a $6,000 monetary sanction, and a firmwide order to review citations, and Erica Whitesock v. Bird Global, Inc. (June 2026) drew a $10,000 monetary sanction. Most other 2026 Texas matters resulted in admonishments, warnings, or orders to show cause rather than monetary penalties.

The competence duty in Texas is Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 1.01, on competent and diligent representation. Texas does not have a separate technology-competence comment like the ABA Model Rule. Opinion 705 reads the existing competence duty to encompass AI, so a lawyer must understand how a tool works and its limitations before relying on it.

Texas requires 15 hours of Minimum Continuing Legal Education each year, including at least 3 hours of legal ethics. There is no statewide mandatory technology or AI CLE credit as of June 2026, although AI-focused programs can count toward the general requirement.