AI rules by state · TX
AI Rules for Lawyers in Texas 2026
- AI disclosure required?
- No
- Governing guidance
- Ethics Opinion 705 (2025)
- Sanctions on record
- Gauthier v. Goodyear (2024), $2,000
- Competence rule
- Disciplinary Rule 1.01
- AI / technology CLE
- No tech or AI requirement
Quick answer
Texas does not require lawyers to disclose AI use as a matter of state ethics rules. Opinion 705 recommends, but does not require, informing clients about AI use and obtaining consent where confidential information is involved. Court disclosure is a separate matter. Several federal judges in Texas, including Judge Brantley Starr, require a signed certification regarding generative AI in every filing, so the obligation turns on the assigned judge.
Ethics guidance
Texas Ethics Opinion 705
February 2025
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.
Sources: State Bar of Texas, Ethics Opinion 705, Texas Bar Blog, principles for lawyers' ethical use of AI
Disclosure rules
Are Texas lawyers required to disclose AI use?
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 set judge by judge. Judge Brantley Starr of the Northern District of Texas issued the first federal AI standing order in 2023. It requires every filer to certify either that no part of the filing was drafted by generative AI, or that any AI-drafted language was checked for accuracy by a human. Counsel must review the standing order of the assigned court.
Source: Judge Brantley Starr, official judge page and AI certification order (N.D. Tex.)
Sanctions on record
AI hallucination sanctions in Texas
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.
Source: Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. (E.D. Tex.), court docket (CourtListener)
Competence duty
The competence rule and AI (Disciplinary Rule 1.01)
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.
CLE requirements
Continuing legal education in Texas
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.
Source: State Bar of Texas, MCLE Rules
How to stay compliant
A practical checklist for Texas lawyers
Texas is home to the first federal AI certification order, so reviewing the assigned judge's standing order is a practical necessity here.
Review the assigned judge's standing order and the court's local rules at the start of every matter. AI disclosure obligations generally sit at the court and judge level rather than in a single statewide rule.
Verify every citation and quotation before filing, and read the underlying authority. Most AI sanctions have resulted from citations the lawyer never personally verified.
Do not enter confidential client information into public AI tools without confirming how the tool handles data and, where there is material confidentiality risk, obtaining the client's informed consent.
Inform the client when AI use materially affects the matter, and honor any client instruction that limits AI use.
Bill only for time actually spent drafting prompts and reviewing output, not for time the tool saved.
Keep any required technology or AI continuing-education credit current, and treat AI competence as part of your duty under the competence rule.
When evaluating tools, look for citation grounding that ties output to verifiable authority, a vendor commitment not to train on client data, and audit trails. These reduce risk, but they do not replace the lawyer's own review.
Frequently asked
Texas AI rules: common questions
Legal AI rules in nearby states
Practising across state lines? Compare Texas’s rules with its neighbors.
This page is general information, not legal advice. Rules change, and the obligations that apply to your matter depend on your court, your judge, and your facts. Verify the current rules with the Texas state bar and the assigned court before you rely on anything here. Last verified June 2026.
Built for lawyers who have to verify everything
Irys grounds its output in verifiable authority, keeps client data out of training, and maintains a record of the work. See how it fits your practice.
Book a Demo