2026-07-20; start date not confirmedProfessional guidanceUnited States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division (signed by U.S. District Judge Marcia A. Crone)Last checked 31 October 2026
Jurisdiction
Texas: AI rules for lawyers
Texas, United States · Switch state
- United States federal courts
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- District of Columbia
- Florida
- Georgia
- Hawaii
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
What this means for lawyers
Verify every citation, quotation and holding in anything you file.
Texas ethics guidance applies the existing Disciplinary Rules to generative AI: understand the tool before using it, verify its output, protect client confidences, and do not bill for time "saved". Technology competence is in comment 8 to Rule 1.01.
Check the court. No statewide AI disclosure rule was found, but federal courts in Texas differ: the Northern District requires a first-page disclosure on briefs, and Judge Marcia A. Crone's Standing Order MC-11 (E.D. Tex., Beaumont Division) requires a certificate with AI-assisted pleadings. Other judges may also have orders; none were reviewed here.
TRAIGA (H.B. 149, effective 1 January 2026) is a general AI statute. It has no provision aimed at lawyers or court filings; its AI-disclosure duty applies only to government agencies and health care providers, and it is enforced by the Attorney General.
As at .
Telling the court and the client
- Tell the courtVaries by court
Court disclosure: depends. No statewide Texas court rule requiring disclosure was found; the N.D. Tex. requires it for briefs, and Standing Order MC-11 (E.D. Tex., Beaumont Division) requires it for pleadings. Client disclosure/consent: depends. No rule mandates it, but Opinion 705 says that where confidential information will be used with a generative AI tool, lawyers should consider informing clients of the risks and may need their consent.
- Tell the clientVaries
Same basis and sources as above.
What changed in Texas in the last 12 months
AI instruments
Courts and tribunals
Consultation, not in forceSecondarySupreme Court of TexasLast checked 31 October 2026
2019-02-26; start date not confirmedBinding ruleSupreme Court of TexasLast checked 31 October 2026
State bar and regulators
Issued February 2025; start date not confirmedSecondaryState Bar of Texas Professional Ethics CommitteeLast checked 10 October 2026
Legislation
1 January 2026; start date not confirmedBinding ruleTexas Legislature (89th Legislature, Regular Session)Last checked 31 October 2026
Sources
- United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division (signed by U.S. District Judge Marcia A. Crone): Standing Order MC-11: Disclosure and certification requirements for use of generative artificial intelligence · last checked
- Supreme Court of Texas: Misc. Docket No. 26-9054: Preliminary Approval of Amendments to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 13 and Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9 and 52 and the Repeal of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 57 · last checked
- Supreme Court of Texas: Misc. Docket No. 19-9016: Order amending comment 8 to Rule 1.01, Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct (technology competence) · last checked
- State Bar of Texas Professional Ethics Committee: Opinion 705 (generative AI) · last checked
- Texas Legislature (89th Legislature, Regular Session): H.B. 149 (enrolled): Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (new Subtitle D, Chapters 551-554, Business & Commerce Code) · last checked
- Special Order No. 2-98 · last checked
Court AI rule changes + new tools, monthly
One email a month when a court changes its AI practice note or a tool is added to the catalogue. Your address is kept for that note. See Privacy.
Before the work starts
- Define the matter
Confirm the client’s instructions, jurisdiction, intended output and the information available before dividing the work.
- Confirm the source material
Check the work against the original records and identify omissions, contradictions and remaining information.
- Record review and approval
Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.
- Jurisdiction
Apply this guidance to the actual matter and jurisdiction. Confirm current requirements before relying on an example.
Limits on AI assistance
- Confirm firm, client and applicable court or professional restrictions before using any AI feature.