Q: What do judges in Texas currently expect attorneys to disclose about AI use in filings? A: Some judges require lawyers to disclose when they used AI and to confirm that a licensed attorney verified all AI output and citations, sometimes with attached sources or pinpoint cites. These requirements are the core of AI disclosure rules for Texas lawyers and aim to ensure transparency and accuracy in court filings. Q: Which legal tasks are appropriate to assign to AI, and which require human oversight? A: AI is useful for sorting large document sets, comparing agreements, drafting outlines and plain-language summaries, and summarizing depositions with links to source pages. However, AI should not be relied on alone for legal research that provides final citations or for authoritative quotes, which require human verification. Q: How can lawyers protect client data when using AI tools? A: Remove names and identifying details before submitting prompts, use enterprise tools with data controls, turn off model training where possible, and prohibit public uploads of privileged information. These steps are recommended in the guide to comply with AI disclosure rules for Texas lawyers and protect client confidentiality. Q: What verification steps should attorneys take before relying on AI-generated citations? A: Attorneys should read the underlying case, confirm authorities with a citator, and check quotes and holdings against the official text, attaching key cases or pinpoint cites when required. Keeping a record of the tool, prompts, and the attorney’s verification steps helps demonstrate the checks were performed. Q: What elements should a firm policy on AI include? A: A firm policy should define approved tools and tasks, ban public uploads of client data, require human review and citation checks, and specify standard disclosure language for courts and clients. It should also mandate staff training on spotting AI errors and offer clients an opt-out for sensitive matters. Q: How should lawyers coordinate AI use with judges and opposing counsel? A: Raise AI use early by asking about court expectations at the scheduling conference or checking the court’s standing orders, and seek guidance from chambers if unclear. If both sides will use AI for discovery review, agree in advance on guardrails, logging formats, and production standards to avoid disputes. Q: What records should attorneys keep when using AI-assisted tools? A: Maintain an audit trail that logs the tool name and version, the prompts used, the outputs retained, and the human checks performed. This audit trail helps meet AI disclosure rules for Texas lawyers and lets you answer questions about verification at hearings. Q: What common mistakes lead to credibility problems when using AI in legal work? A: Common mistakes include relying on AI to find and cite cases without human review, skipping the court’s standing orders on AI disclosure, pasting privileged details into public chatbots, and allowing AI to rewrite facts in a way that changes meaning. Catching these errors early protects client credibility and the integrity of filings.