Texas · state bar
Opinion 705: generative artificial intelligence under the Texas Disciplinary Rules
The opinion applies the competence rule to generative AI: a lawyer using it must understand its benefits and risks. It cites the sanctioned brief that relied on invented opinions, and notes that many models produce convincing answers that are made up.
Tracker entry · Texas
- Court. Professional Ethics Committee for the State Bar of TexasCOURT
- Level. state barLEVEL
- Date. February 2025DATED
- What it requires. verification dutyREQUIRES
- Source. Read the documentSOURCE
Last checked · we opened the source on that day and drew the requirement above from its text.
The committee wrote this at the request of the State Bar of Texas Taskforce on Responsible AI in the Law, and it says plainly what it is: a snapshot of potential ethical concerns and a restatement of principles, not an answer to every question the technology will raise.
On competence, the committee reads Rule 1.01 as it has read it for cloud computing and metadata, and extends technological competence to generative AI. It does not require a lawyer to use these tools, and it does not want lawyers retreating unnecessarily from technology that saves clients time and money. What it will not accept is unexamined output: the opinion cites the sanctioned brief that relied on non-existent opinions, and notes the tendency of these models to produce inaccurate answers that sound convincing.
This entry is descriptive, not legal advice. It records what one document says. Read the order that governs your own division before you rely on any of it, and check whether it has changed since the date above.
Back to every jurisdiction in the tracker, or readhow to check an AI citation before you file.