“Appeals court again rejects bid to dismiss Graham Weston lawsuit against former attorney” —

• “An Austin appeals court has again rejected a San Antonio attorney’s attempt to dismiss a lawsuit by Rackspace Technology Inc. co-founder and downtown developer Graham Weston, reaffirming that claims the lawyer worked against him by representing his estranged wife in their divorce can proceed.”
• “In a revised opinion issued Thursday after rehearing, the 3rd Court of Appeals left its decision unchanged but sharpened its reasoning, saying the lawsuit against San Antonio attorney Jason Davis and his firm centers on alleged conflicts and failures to disclose them-not protected legal speech under the Texas Citizens Participation Act. Davis argued the lawsuit should be dismissed under the act, saying the claims stem from his communications and legal work in investigating and pursuing his client’s claims in the divorce.”
• “Weston countered that his lawsuit is based not on protected communications but on Davis’ alleged conduct, including failing to disclose a conflict while representing opposing interests.”
• “Because Weston’s claims focus on Davis’ alleged conduct rather than his courtroom filings or legal advocacy, the court said they don’t qualify for dismissal under the act, which protects free speech and legal petitioning from retaliatory lawsuits.”
• “The revised opinion more clearly draws a line between protected legal speech and an attorney’s conduct toward a client, reinforcing that alleged conflicts of interest and nondisclosure fall outside the law’s protections.”
• “A trial court had disqualified Davis from representing Elizabeth Weston in the divorce, citing his prior work for Weston and finding a conflict of interest.”
• “In 2021, after Davis’ disqualification, Weston sued Davis and his firm, Davis & Santos, alleging they breached their fiduciary duty and committed fraud by agreeing to ‘secretly represent’ Elizabeth Weston while simultaneously representing him and three family companies.”
• “The appeals court ruling sends the case back to state District Court in Comal County, where Weston and a few family firms are seeking damages and the return of millions of dollars in legal fees paid to Davis over more than a decade. The appeals court did not determine whether Davis committed misconduct.”

David Kluft asks: “If I get an order to show cause that asks whether I used #AI, can I refuse to respond because my legal research is work product?” —

• “Two TN attorneys submitted briefs to the 6th Cir. with over two dozen fake citations and misrepresentations of the record, which appeared to have been generated by AI. The Court issued a show cause order asking, inter alia, who wrote the briefs, whether they used generative AI, and how they cite-checked the legal authorities.”
• “Instead of providing a substantive response to the show cause order, the lawyers claimed that the ‘attorney-client and work-product privilege excused compliance with the show cause order’ because compliance would reveal the ‘details of the Respondent attorney’s work product and practices.’”
• “The Court disagreed and held that, under the privilege and work product doctrines, ‘we may not compel the disclosure of a lawyer’s notes, prior drafts of briefs, or legal advice absent waiver … But the order to show cause sought no such thing. Whether and how the briefs were cite-checked does not implicate conversations regarding legal advice, nor do they ask for any work product of any kind.’ The lawyers were sanctioned with $15K each in fines, attorneys’ fees, and a disciplinary referral.”
• Decision: here.

“California Bar Proposes Rule Requiring Lawyers to Verify Every AI Output — and Five Other AI-Focused Ethics Changes” —

• “When using any technology — including AI — a lawyer ‘must independently review, verify, and exercise professional judgment regarding any output generated by the technology that is used in connection with representing a client.’”
• “That language appears in a new comment to Rule 1.1 on competence proposed by the State Bar of California’s Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct (COPRAC) as part of a package of AI-related amendments to six of the state’s Rules of Professional Conduct.”
  “The proposed changes would, for the first time, write specific AI obligations into California’s rules. The changes span the rules on competence, client communication, confidentiality, candor toward tribunals, and supervision of both lawyers and other staff.”
• “The rulemaking was set in motion by the California Supreme Court itself. In an Aug. 22, 2025, letter to the state bar’s interim executive director, the court’s clerk and executive officer directed COPRAC to consider whether the guiding principles from the bar’s November 2023 ‘Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law’ should be incorporated into the formal rules.”
• “The court also directed the bar to consider guidance specifically addressing ‘agentic AI’ tools — systems that can plan and execute tasks with little or no human intervention.”
• “COPRAC approved the proposed amendments at its March 13, 2026, meeting and opened the 45-day comment period. Rather than drafting a standalone AI rule, the committee wove new language into six existing rules, reflecting a view that AI sharpens existing ethical duties rather than creating entirely new ones.”
• “Whereas California’s 2023 practical guidance was a ‘living document’ with no binding authority, these proposed amendments would change that by making AI-specific obligations part of the enforceable rules.”
• “Most states that have addressed AI in legal practice have done so through ethics opinions, which carry persuasive but not always disciplinary force. California’s approach, if finalized, would be more muscular.”
• “I have tracked the adoption of the duty of technology competence across jurisdictions on a dedicated page on this blog. These proposals represent among the most detailed and comprehensive set of AI-specific rule amendments I have seen any state bar put forward.”
• “A new Comment 5 to Rule 1.4 addresses when lawyers must disclose their use of AI to clients. The proposed language provides that when a lawyer’s use of technology, including AI, ‘presents a significant risk or materially affects the scope, cost, manner, or decision-making process of representation,’ the lawyer must communicate ‘sufficient information regarding the use of technology to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.’”
• “The comment adds that lawyers must continue to evaluate their communication obligations throughout a representation based on ‘the novelty of the technology, risks associated with the use of the technology, scope of the representation, and sophistication of the client.’”
• “Amendments to Rule 1.6, Confidential Information of a Client. The confidentiality rule, which prohibits lawyers from revealing confidential client information, gets a new Comment 2 that expand sthe definition of ‘reveal’ to encompass AI use.”
• “Under the proposed language, ‘reveal’ includes ‘exposing confidential information to technological systems, including artificial intelligence tools, where such exposure creates a material risk that the information may be accessed, retained, or used, whether by the technological system or another user of that technological system, in a manner inconsistent with the lawyer’s duty of confidentiality.’”
• “This means that inputting client information into an AI tool — even if the lawyer never intends for anyone else to see it — can constitute a revelation of confidential information under the rules if there is a material risk the system or its other users could access, retain or use that data. Lawyers using cloud-based AI tools with unclear or unfavorable data retention and training policies need to pay attention to this.”
• “Amendments to Rule 3.3, Candor Toward the Tribunal. This amendment directly addresses the AI hallucination problem that has generated judicial sanctions and considerable alarm across the profession. A new Comment 3 states that ‘a lawyer’s duty of candor towards the tribunal includes the obligation to verify the accuracy and existence of cited authorities, including ensuring no cited authority is fabricated, misstated, or taken out of context, before submission to a tribunal, including any cited authorities generated or assisted by artificial intelligence or other technological tools.’”
  “The existing rule already prohibits knowingly misquoting authority or citing overruled decisions. The new comment makes explicit that AI-generated citations are not exempt from those obligations, and that the verification duty extends specifically to fabricated, misstated or decontextualized authority.”
• “Amendments to Rule 5.1, Responsibilities of Managerial and Supervisory Lawyers. The proposed amendment adds AI governance to the list of matters that managerial lawyers at law firms must address through internal policies and procedures.”
• “…the independent verification requirement in Rule 1.1 is worth emphasizing. It does not say lawyers should generally be careful with AI output. It says they must independently review, verify and exercise professional judgment regarding any output used in client representation. That is a strict standard, and one that cuts against any casual reliance on AI-generated work product.”
• “Third, the confidentiality amendment’s expansion of ‘reveal’ is practically significant. Lawyers accustomed to thinking of confidentiality as a disclosure-to-humans concept will need to rethink how they select and use AI tools in light of this definition.”
• “Although the comment period has closed, the rulemaking process continues. COPRAC will review public input and could modify the proposals before they advance. The California Supreme Court ultimately has authority over the Rules of Professional Conduct. Whether and when these amendments might take effect remains to be seen.”