Phone Number
877.832.4180Email
info@techmedics.comPasadena, CA
45 S. Arroyo Pkwy. Ste. 104
Pasadena, CA 91105
Pasadena, CA 91105
Denver, CO
383 Corona St. Ste. 100 Denver, CO 80218
Dallas, TX
2451 W. Grapevine Mills Cir. #541 Grapevine, TX 76051
Law firms sell expertise, but a large share of the working day goes to producing documents. Intake notes become memos, discovery becomes summaries, and routine letters get written again and again. For a small or mid-sized firm, that is time not spent advising clients or winning new matters.
That is why many managing partners are asking where AI fits. The short answer: today, AI works best in a law firm the way a capable paralegal does, producing drafts and summaries that a lawyer reviews before anything reaches a client or a court. It can save real time, but it does not replace a lawyer’s judgment or the lawyer’s responsibility for the work.
The legal profession has also said a good deal about AI. The American Bar Association (ABA) and several state bars have published ethics guidance, and courts have sanctioned lawyers who filed AI-generated citations to cases that do not exist. Knowing what that guidance covers makes it easier to pick tools and set firm policies.
In this blog post, we will look at practical ways firms are using AI, what the ABA and state bars in California and Texas have said, and the technology questions to settle before rollout. We will also explain how Techmedics’ IT consulting services and our work with law firms can help you plan it.
Engagement letters, client updates, cover letters, and standard motions follow familiar patterns. An AI assistant can produce a first draft from a lawyer’s notes in minutes. The lawyer then edits it the way they would edit a junior associate’s draft, line by line.
A long deposition transcript or a stack of medical records can take hours to digest, and AI can produce a first outline much faster. The risk is a missed admission or a wrong date that later shapes strategy. Treat an AI summary as a map of where to look, then confirm anything important against the source document.
Prospective clients often arrive with a phone call, an email thread, and a stack of attachments. AI can turn that into a short intake summary with dates, parties, and open questions, which helps the firm run a conflict check and decide whether to take the matter.
AI can suggest arguments and point toward authority. It can also invent cases. In 2023, a federal judge in New York fined two lawyers and their firm $5,000 after a court filing cited opinions that ChatGPT had made up. We covered the case in our post on the risks of using ChatGPT at work. Every citation should be pulled and read in a trusted legal research service before anything is filed.
On July 29, 2024, the ABA issued Formal Opinion 512, its first ethics opinion on generative AI (AI that writes new text, images, or other content from a prompt). It ties AI use to existing duties of competence, confidentiality, client communication, and reasonable fees. On billing, the ABA’s example works like this: a lawyer may charge for the time spent entering information into an AI tool and reviewing its draft. In most circumstances, the lawyer cannot charge a client for learning how to use the tool. ABA opinions are guidance for interpreting the ABA’s model rules; each state’s own rules and bar decide what applies to its lawyers.
The State Bar of California’s 2026 Practical Guidance replaces its 2023 version and adds “agentic” AI, meaning tools that can carry out multistep tasks on their own, such as preparing discovery responses. A few points stand out for firms in Pasadena, Los Angeles, and Irvine:
The Professional Ethics Committee for the State Bar of Texas issued Opinion 705 in February 2025. It says lawyers “cannot blindly rely upon” AI answers and should verify their accuracy. It warns that a tool that learns from what users type in may store client information and reveal it later, and it suggests reviewing a tool’s terms of service before use. It also says lawyers should not bill for time “saved” by AI. For firms in the Dallas area, the practical message matches California’s: verify outputs, protect client data, and bill for time actually worked.
Bar guidance continues to change, and the details differ from state to state. Your state bar’s ethics resources, or your firm’s ethics counsel, can confirm how it applies to your practice.
Much of what the bars describe comes down to IT decisions a firm makes before anyone opens an AI tool.
Which tools are approved. The biggest risk is often shadow AI: a free consumer tool that a staff member uses with a client’s documents, without anyone at the firm approving it.
Where client data goes. Business-grade tools handle data differently from free ones. Microsoft, for example, states that prompts, responses, and the files its Copilot assistant reads aren’t used to train the underlying AI models. That is the kind of vendor documentation the California guidance suggests reviewing.
Who can see which matters. Microsoft also states that Copilot only shows information a user already has permission to view. In a firm where matter folders are open to everyone by default, an AI assistant inherits that openness, including across ethical walls (the barriers that keep conflicted lawyers away from certain matters). Cleaning up file and folder permissions is usually the first step.
What the AI is allowed to do on its own. Tools that can send email or move files need tighter limits than tools that only answer questions.
To put AI to work without putting client confidences at risk, request a consultation today with Techmedics.
Technology challenges rarely have one-size-fits-all solutions. A consultation with Techmedics can help you better understand your options and identify practical next steps for your organization. Start with a conversation about what you're trying to accomplish and where technology may be getting in the way.
