Artificial Intelligence in Legal Practice: A Practical Guide for Texas Lawyers and Beyond

Hardly a day passes without Artificial Intelligence (AI) capabilities and advancements capturing the headlines. Without question, AI is rapidly impacting many aspects of our daily lives—banking, software development, education, and, yes, the practice of law. While the benefits and impacts of AI are frequently extolled, the reality is that AI remains in the early stages of development and, like anything else, has its shortcomings and failures. But make no mistake: AI capabilities are evolving at an extraordinary pace, and they will profoundly reshape the delivery of legal and other business services.

Technology as Enhancement, Not Displacement

For years now, the legal profession has embraced technology and software tools designed to assist with legal research, e-discovery, and matter management. Well-known and now mature technology solutions such as Westlaw®, LexisNexis®, Relativity®, and Everlaw® (1), among others, have been broadly embraced and utilized across the legal profession without many questions or comments. Much like when software-based word processing replaced the typewriter, the profession recognizes the tools lawyers use will continue to evolve. All these historical solutions and advancements, however, were viewed by the bar to enhance the ability of legal professionals to perform routine day-to-day tasks. None of them were seen as displacing lawyer involvement or judgment. Consequently, despite these advances, state bars historically saw no need to raise cautionary flags with respect to the use of these tools or to recommend client consent to their use, as legal professionals continued to deliver direct oversight and the tools enhanced efficiency rather than rendering lawyers obsolete, benefiting both clients and the judicial process.

AI Emerges and Professional Guidance Follows

Is AI different? From enhancing research efficiency to streamlining routine tasks, generative AI offers meaningful advantages—much like legacy tools did in earlier years. Yet, due to the inherent risks in using AI without proper safeguards, state bars and the American Bar Associated (ABA) (Formal Opinion 512) (2) have felt the need to offer specific guidance regarding the use of AI tools. In 2023, for example, the Texas Bar was among the first to publicly discuss and address the potential benefits and risks associated with the use of AI, establishing a Taskforce for Responsible AI in the Law.

Three years later, the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct (TDRPC) still do not specifically mention “AI.”  But like any other action taken by lawyers, it is assumed the established professional obligations and rules that apply to all aspects of legal practice squarely govern the use of AI. In February 2025, the Professional Ethics Committee of the State Bar of Texas issued Opinion 705, which interprets and applies established ethical duties and rules of conduct to the context of generative AI, providing important guidance for Texas lawyers. (3)

The Duty of Competence in the Age of AI

Opinion 705 makes clear that core TDRPC obligations remain fully operative, including the governance of the use of AI. The duty of competent representation, which includes staying current with “the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology,” requires lawyers to understand that AI is more than just a catch phrase. The use of AI must be balanced against its risks, which requires a clear understanding of its capabilities and limitations. While Opinion 705 in no way mandates the use of AI tools, it certainly suggests that “competent” counsel must continually assess and incorporate technology if such technology will result in better and more cost-effective client outcomes. Of course, this obligation to assess how technology can aid the practice of law extends to understanding how AI tools function, including their limitations and potential for error or bias. Lawyers must not blindly rely on AI outputs or accept the conclusions presented without first exercising independent judgment and verifying results (TDRPC Rule 1.01).

AI Does Not Diminish Confidentiality Obligations

Equally fundamental to the practice of law is the obligation to maintain client confidentiality. Many AI tools operate by processing user inputs through third-party systems, which can pose risks of inadvertent disclosure or retention of confidential client information.  Attorneys must take reasonable steps to safeguard client information before using AI services, including vetting tools and vendors for appropriate security measures, avoiding disclosure of confidential details to insecure systems, and training staff concerning best practices (TDRPC Rule 1.05). Opinion 705 is equally clear that attorneys can rely on third-party experts to assist in understanding the strengths, limitations, and risks of deploying AI tools. But ultimately, lawyers bear the responsibility for taking necessary precautions.

Such precautions also extend to informing clients about the use of AI and the associated potential risks, particularly the risks to both the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine. In February 2026, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that a criminal defendant had effectively waived both protections by using commercially available AI engines to develop case strategy and other defense related materials. (4) The defendant later shared those materials with his lawyers ostensibly to aid his defense. The court further found that counsel had not directed the creation of these materials, eliminating any basis for application of the work product doctrine.

Because the materials were generated using an AI platform that did not ensure confidentiality, the court concluded their subsequent delivery to counsel did not suddenly give rise to attorney-client privilege protections. Whether or not the decision withstands appeal, it underscores the need to understand AI use cases carefully and to take affirmative steps to safeguard fundamental protections such as the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. Notably, this ruling arose in a criminal proceeding, where such privileges are typically afforded significant deference.

AI Does Not Shift Professional Responsibility

Opinion 705 further emphasizes that attorneys must independently verify any information generated by AI before using it in client work, filings, or legal advice. Blind reliance on AI outputs may result in violations of ethical rules requiring candor, accuracy, and fairness. Lawyers remain fully responsible for verifying the correctness and the suitability of all attorney work product, regardless of whether AI assistance was used. The duty to supervise applies to all work performed in connection with legal services, whether executed by human or technological means. When AI tools are employed, attorneys must ensure such use is properly supervised and that the final product meets all ethical and legal standards (TDRPC Rule 5.01).

The Duty to Inform and Consult

Opinion 705 places the burden on Texas attorneys to inform clients when AI-driven tools are going to be used in the delivery of legal services. While this requirement makes sense on a very fundamental level, it further underscores that the Texas Bar perceives AI tools to be fundamentally different from the other tech-based utilities attorneys have utilized for years. Further, all those legacy tools now claim to have an added AI layer that augments their efficacy and efficiency. This convergence toward AI-enhanced functionality, therefore, requires clear communication to clients about how AI will be utilized in the delivery of the contemplated legal services.

Conclusion 

Sandler Law Group has adopted internal policies and protocols to ensure the ethical, secure, and effective use of AI technology, including: 

• Routine evaluation and vetting of AI tools for appropriate confidentiality safeguards

• Mandatory human review and verification of all AI-assisted outputs

• Training and supervisory mechanisms for attorneys and support staff

• Clear internal guidelines on data security and client confidentiality

Responsible AI integration is not optional; it is now an essential component of competent and ethical legal practice.

Artificial intelligence is a powerful tool that, when used responsibly, can enhance the delivery of legal services and improve client outcomes. It does not, however,  diminish our ethical obligations under the TDRPC. Competence, confidentiality, supervision, independent judgment, and client communication remain foundational to the practice, regardless of the technologies employed. At Sandler Law Group, innovation and professional responsibility advance together.

1 Many of these broadly accepted tools now promote the fact that they have an Artificial Intelligence layer.

2 https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-512.pdf

3  The Texas Bar has also created specific resources – the “AI Toolkit” – to guide lawyers navigating the assessment, selection, and implementation of AI tools. https://www.texasbar.com/Content/NavigationMenu/ForLawyers/State_Bar_of_Texas_AI_Toolkit/default.htm

4 Debevoise & Plimpton, “SDNY Rules AI-Generated Documents Are Not Protected by Privilege (Feb. 12, 2026). https://www.debevoisedatablog.com/2026/02/11/district-court-rules-ai-generated-documents-are-not-protected-by-privilege/

About the Authors

Regina Uhl, Partner
Diane Jenkins, Partner
Jonas Hoerler, Of Counsel* (Not admitted in Texas)
David R. Fontaine, Of Counsel* (Not admitted in Texas)