--- title: "Texas: AI rules for lawyers" url: "https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/texas" type: "jurisdiction" site: "AI Law Framework" id: "US-TX" kind: "state" country: "US" parent: "United States" last_checked: "2026-10-31" as_of: "2026-10-31" last_reviewed: "2026-11-03" --- # Texas: AI rules for lawyers > Texas: court and regulator AI instruments and the tasks that change here. Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/texas Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt ## 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 31 October 2026. ## Telling the court and the client **Tell the court:** Varies 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. - [Special Order No. 2-98](https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/orders/2-98.pdf) - [Standing Order MC-11](https://www.txed.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/judgeFiles/Standing%20Order%20MC-11%20%287.15.26%29.pdf) - [Opinion 705](https://legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-705/) **Tell the client:** Varies Same basis and sources as above. ## Last checked Last checked 31 October 2026. ## What changed in Texas in the last 12 months - 1 January 2026 · Dated: [H.B. 149 (enrolled): Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (new Subtitle D, Chapters 551-554, Business & Commerce Code)](#ai-rule-jr-us-tx-traiga-hb149) ## AI instruments ### Courts and tribunals #### Standing Order MC-11: Disclosure and certification requirements for use of generative artificial intelligence - Type: Court rule or order · Standing order - Issuer: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division (signed by U.S. District Judge Marcia A. Crone) - Date on page: 20 July 2026 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: 2026-07-20; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.txed.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/judgeFiles/Standing%20Order%20MC-11%20%287.15.26%29.pdf Signed by Judge Marcia A. Crone (Beaumont Division). Applies to all parties, represented or self-represented, in civil and criminal cases when they submit a filing with the court. If a party uses generative AI to draft or assist in drafting a pleading, it must include a 'Certificate of Generative Artificial Intelligence Usage' disclosing the use, certifying independent verification of the accuracy of the AI-assisted portions, and certifying that the use did not disclose confidential or privileged information to an unauthorised party. The order also warns of sanctions under the court's inherent authority, including fines, dismissal, education requirements and reporting to disciplinary boards. Key points: - Certificate required with any pleading drafted or assisted by generative AI. - Must certify independent verification of accuracy and no disclosure of confidential or privileged information to an unauthorised party. - Order says AI use does not excuse ethical infractions and refers to FRCP 11(b)(2) and E.D. Tex. Local Rules CV-11(g), AT-3(m) and AT-3(b). - Wording says 'pleading'; scope beyond pleadings (for example briefs) is not stated. - Signed by one judge (Judge Crone); reach beyond her cases is not stated on the face of the order. #### 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 - Type: Consultation, not in force · Consultation - Issuer: Supreme Court of Texas - Date on page: 26 June 2026 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: Consultation, not in force - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462936/269054.pdf Proposed rewrite of civil Rule 13 (with matching changes to appellate Rule 9) under which a person who signs a court filing represents that they reviewed it and verified its accuracy, including that legal citations, quotations and holdings are not fabricated. The Court's comment says this is adopted principally to address improper use of AI in filings, but that verifying accuracy matters whether or not AI was used. Sanctions (reprimand, contempt, striking, dismissal, costs or attorney's fees) require notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond and must be proportionate. Applies to attorneys and self-represented parties in Texas state courts if finalised. Key points: - Proposed Rule 13(c)(1): the signer reviewed the filing and verified its accuracy, including that legal citations, quotations and holdings are not fabricated. - Proposed Rule 13(e): court may sanction a filing inconsistent with the representation only after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond; sanctions must be proportionate and lesser sanctions must be tried first (or reasons given) before contempt, striking or dismissal. - Appellate Rule 9.1(d) as proposed adds the same signer representation and extends it to record citations; proposed Rule 9.1(f) adds matching sanction provisions, and Rule 52.11 is amended to follow Rule 9's notice, response and order procedures. - Comments closed 1 September 2026 and the Court may change the text. As at 2026-10-31 no finalising order appears on the Court's 2026 administrative-orders list, although 1 October 2026 has passed; check for one before relying on the text. #### Misc. Docket No. 19-9016: Order amending comment 8 to Rule 1.01, Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct (technology competence) - Type: Court rule or order · Court rule - Issuer: Supreme Court of Texas - Date on page: 26 February 2019 - Effective date: Not stated - Status: 2019-02-26; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1443638/199016.pdf Amended paragraph 8 of the comment to Rule 1.01 so that a lawyer should strive to become and remain proficient and competent in the practice of law, 'including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology'. The comment is the basis Opinion 705 relies on for a duty of technological competence when using generative AI. Key points: - Technology competence sits in the comment to Rule 1.01 (should strive to remain proficient, including benefits and risks of relevant technology). - Not AI-specific; applied to generative AI by Ethics Opinion 705. ### State bar and regulators #### Opinion 705 (generative AI) - Type: Ethics opinion - Issuer: State Bar of Texas Professional Ethics Committee - Date on page: Not stated - Effective date: 2025-02 - Status: Issued February 2025; start date not confirmed - Last checked 10 October 2026 - URL: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-705/ - Recorded under United States; shown here because the issuer is in Texas. Competence (Rule 1.01), confidentiality, supervision and independent verification of AI output. Checked 10 October 2026: a source row already exists in a United States area-note source row. This rule cites that source. The research file linked https://www.texasbarpractice.com/ethics-professional-responsibility/, which is a secondary page and is not used as the source. ### Legislation #### H.B. 149 (enrolled): Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (new Subtitle D, Chapters 551-554, Business & Commerce Code) - Type: Legislation - Issuer: Texas Legislature (89th Legislature, Regular Session) - Date on page: 30 May 2025 - Effective date: 1 January 2026 - Status: 1 January 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/HB00149F.htm A general AI statute, not specific to lawyers. Subtitle D applies to a person who promotes, advertises or conducts business in Texas, produces a product or service used by Texas residents, or develops or deploys an AI system in Texas, and it creates the Texas Artificial Intelligence Council and a regulatory sandbox. The consumer-disclosure duty (s 552.051) applies to governmental agencies and to providers of health care services, not to businesses such as law firms generally. Subchapter B also prohibits certain uses by any person (for example developing or deploying AI intended to incite self-harm, harm to others or criminal activity). The Attorney General has exclusive enforcement authority and there is no private right of action. No provision directed at lawyers or court filings was identified. Key points: - Effective 1 January 2026 per section 10 of the enrolled bill. - Applicability (s 551.002) turns on promoting, advertising or conducting business in Texas, producing products or services used by Texas residents, or developing or deploying an AI system in Texas. - 'Consumer' means a Texas resident acting only in an individual or household context, not a commercial or employment context. - s 552.051: governmental agencies must disclose to consumers that they are interacting with AI; providers of health care services must disclose AI use in treatment. The Act contains no other AI-disclosure duty, so none applies to private businesses generally. - Enforcement (ss 552.101-552.105): Attorney General only, no private right of action; written notice and a 60-day cure period before suit; civil penalties of $10,000-$12,000 per curable violation, $80,000-$200,000 per uncurable violation and $2,000-$40,000 per day for continuing violations. - s 552.106: a state agency may sanction its own licensees for a Subchapter B violation after an Attorney General finding and recommendation (suspension or revocation, fines up to $100,000). Whether this reaches lawyers was not assessed. ## 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](https://www.txed.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/judgeFiles/Standing%20Order%20MC-11%20%287.15.26%29.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - 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](https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462936/269054.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - 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)](https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1443638/199016.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - State Bar of Texas Professional Ethics Committee: [Opinion 705 (generative AI)](https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-705/) · last checked 31 October 2026 - 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)](https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/HB00149F.htm) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Special Order No. 2-98](https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/orders/2-98.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 ## Key facts - Kind: State - Task versions written for this jurisdiction: 0 - AI instruments recorded: 5 *Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*