Texas Bar Ethics Opinion 705: What It Means for AI Use in Your Family Law Practice

What Is Texas Bar Ethics Opinion 705?

Texas State Bar Ethics Opinion 705, issued in February 2025, is the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct guidance on attorney use of generative AI in legal practice. It provides the framework that every Texas family law attorney using AI tools — including AI motion drafting tools — must follow.

The good news: Opinion 705 does not prohibit AI use in legal practice. The framework it establishes is workable and, for attorneys who already exercise careful professional judgment, largely consistent with existing obligations.

The Four Core Requirements of Opinion 705

1. Competence — Rule 1.01

Texas Disciplinary Rule 1.01 requires attorneys to provide competent representation. Opinion 705 applies this to AI use: an attorney who uses AI-generated legal work product must have sufficient understanding of both the AI tool and the underlying legal requirements to evaluate the output competently.

For family law practitioners using AI motion drafting, this means: you must know what §157.002(c) requires well enough to verify that the AI-generated motion meets it. You cannot simply accept AI output without review and call it competent representation.

2. Confidentiality — Rule 1.05

Texas Disciplinary Rule 1.05 imposes strict confidentiality obligations. Opinion 705 addresses this directly: attorneys must understand how any AI tool they use handles client data before using it.

Key questions to ask before using any AI tool with client information:

• Is client data used to train the AI model?
• Where is data stored and for how long?
• Who has access to the data?
• Is there a data processing agreement in place?

3. Supervision — Rule 5.01/5.03

Opinion 705 makes clear that AI output is subject to the same supervision requirements as work produced by a paralegal or associate. The supervising attorney is responsible for the work product that comes out of any AI system they use.

This means: attorney review of every AI-generated document is not optional. It is a professional obligation. An "I didn't review it" defense will not protect you from a grievance or malpractice claim arising from an AI-generated filing.

4. Candor — Rule 3.03

Opinion 705 notes that filing AI-generated content that the attorney has not reviewed — and that contains errors of law or fact — implicates the candor obligations under Rule 3.03. You cannot file something you know or should know is incorrect, regardless of whether a human or an AI generated it.

What Opinion 705 Does Not Require

Opinion 705 does not require attorneys to disclose to opposing counsel or the court that AI was used to draft a motion. It does not prohibit AI use in legal practice. It does not require any specific technical certification before using AI tools.

How JurisFile Is Built Around Opinion 705

JurisFile's entire workflow is designed with Opinion 705 compliance as a first principle:

• Mandatory attorney approval gate — no PDF is generated until the attorney explicitly reviews and approves the draft. The system cannot be bypassed.
• No AI training on client data — client case information input into JurisFile is never used to train AI models
• Data processing protections — all third-party service providers are contractually bound to maintain confidentiality
• Clear AI disclosure — JurisFile's Terms of Service and every generated document make clear that the output is AI-generated and requires attorney review

JurisFile is designed to assist attorneys, not replace them. The attorney remains responsible for every filing.