The Texas Bar's Ethics Committee Says Lawyers May Not Bill Hourly for Time Generative AI Saved

In February 2025, the Professional Ethics Committee for the State Bar of Texas issued Opinion No. 705, on the ethical issues that a lawyer's use of generative artificial intelligence raises under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. It answers a request from the State Bar's Taskforce on Responsible AI in the Law for "a high-level overview." The opinion "does not purport to address every ethical issue that might arise now or in the future," and some of its issues "may soon be resolved or mooted by changes in the technology or industry practices." It is intended, in its words, "only to provide a snapshot of potential ethical concerns at the moment and a restatement of certain ethical principles." Parts of it follow, not the whole.

Checking the Work

"Though this should likely go without saying," the committee writes, "a lawyer should always verify the accuracy of any responses received from a generative AI tool." That principle, it says, "apparently wasn't obvious to the ever-increasing number of lawyers who have been caught submitting made-up citations in court filings."

So it says it again. "Lawyers are responsible for the work product they submit regardless of who (or what) does the original research and drafting." They "cannot blindly rely upon or use answers given by generative AI tools," and those who rely on generative AI for research, drafting and communication "risk many of the same perils as those who rely on inexperienced or overconfident nonlawyer assistants."

AI-generated outputs "can be used as a starting point for a lawyer's work, but must always be carefully analyzed for accuracy and quality." A lawyer's duties, it adds, require more than merely detecting and eliminating false AI-generated results. The lawyer is ultimately responsible, it says, for ensuring that the content is accurate and supports the client's interests.

Fees

One of the most promising aspects of these tools, the opinion says, is the possibility for lawyers to provide legal services more efficiently. In most typical hourly arrangements, depending on the agreement, a lawyer "will likely be able to charge the client for the actual time the lawyer spends using a generative AI program for purposes of the representation, including to refine the program's outputs and check the work."

The next sentence draws the line. A lawyer may not, however, charge hourly fees for the time that was saved by using the generative AI program, and the opinion sets the word "saved" in quotation marks.

It quotes the District of Columbia Bar Association's Legal Ethics Opinion 388 of 2024, which itself quotes earlier opinions. A lawyer "who has undertaken to bill on an hourly basis is never justified in charging a client for hours not actually expended." "When that basis for billing the client has been agreed to," it goes on, "the economies associated with the result must inure to the benefit of the client." The committee also cites the Florida Bar's Ethics Opinion 24-1, which says that though generative AI programs may make a lawyer's work more efficient, the increase in efficiency must not result in falsely inflated claims of time.

If the lawyer pays per use for a particular generative AI program, the opinion says, "the lawyer may be able to collect those expenses from the client, as allowed by law and if the client accepts that arrangement." One could imagine, it says, a client agreeing to reimburse those expenses in much the same way some clients agree to pay for the use of traditional online research tools. The lawyer "will generally not be permitted to recover more than the amount of expenses actually incurred and paid to the generative AI provider."