Podcast · Episode 7
Daily Brief: ABA keeps full duties for clients with decision-making limitations, Texas Supreme Court weighs AI deposition transcripts
ABA Formal Opinion 525 keeps full duties for clients with decision-making limitations, the Texas Supreme Court weighs AI-made deposition transcripts without a certified court reporter, and the NYC Bar says do not record non-clients with AI by default.
Read by two synthetic voices, Alex Carter and Jordan Ellis.
Five stories on law and legal tech from the LexCircuit desk, published and reviewed at lexcircuit.com.
1. ABA says lawyers owe clients with decision-making limitations the same duties as any other client
The American Bar Association issued Formal Opinion 525 on September 2, 2026, on representing clients with decision-making limitations under Model Rules 1.14 and 1.16. The opinion says a lawyer must maintain an ordinary client-lawyer relationship as far as possible and assess any limitation independently, may take protective action when the client faces a risk of substantial harm, including consulting family members or others, and may petition a court to appoint a guardian. It calls guardianship “a serious deprivation of individual rights,” says a lawyer should not pursue it when less restrictive alternatives are available, and bars a lawyer from representing a third party seeking guardianship over the lawyer’s own client. Withdrawal remains available under Model Rule 1.16 where that rule permits it.
2. Texas Supreme Court to hear whether an AI-made deposition transcript can be used without a certified court reporter
The Supreme Court of Texas will hear argument at 9 a.m. on October 6, 2026 in In re Patrick Hughey, No. 25-0463, on whether a trial court could quash depositions taken through the AI platform Skribe.ai and strike the transcript it produced without a certified shorthand reporter. The trial court quashed three depositions noticed on Skribe.ai and barred a Skribe transcript, and the Beaumont court of appeals denied mandamus in May 2025; on September 18 the Supreme Court let an amicus join the argument. Reddico Construction and the National Court Reporters Association defend the order, with Reddico arguing that Government Code chapter 154 lets only a certified shorthand reporter, a party, counsel, or their employees prepare a written deposition transcript, and the association arguing that AI and speech-recognition transcripts are unreliable and any change is for the Legislature. The Institute for Constitutional AI Law cites Rules 199.1(c) and 203.6(a) and asks the Court to vacate the order striking the relator’s transcript.
3. NYC Bar ethics committee says lawyers should not use AI to record calls with non-clients by default
The New York City Bar Association’s Committee on Professional Ethics issued Formal Opinion 2026-2 on August 5, 2026, on AI tools that record, transcribe, and summarize lawyers’ conversations with people who are not clients. It concludes the default should be not to use them absent a good reason, that lawyers must disclose an intended recording and obtain every participant’s permission, and that surreptitious recording is barred under a lawyer’s duties under Rule 8.4. Competence under Rule 1.1 requires understanding how the tools record, transcribe, and summarize, and how that information is stored and shared. The opinion also cites Rules 1.18, 3.4, 4.2, and 4.3, and says lawyers may need to review transcripts and summaries for accuracy.
4. Illinois creates AI Cabinet to advise on incident response and safety policy
Gov. JB Pritzker signed Executive Order 2026-07 on September 22, creating the Illinois Artificial Intelligence Cabinet, a cross-sector group that advises state government on AI incident preparedness, safeguards for public assets and infrastructure including water and power systems, and further AI safety and accountability policy. The cabinet is advisory only, imposes no new rules, and formulates policy proposals through 2027; the order directs it to analyze emerging AI incidents and share lessons learned, and to study data-center effects on the grid and ratepayers, procurement standards, and strict-liability options. Members serve unpaid, and Pritzker will seek input from agency leaders and announce members in the coming weeks.
5. Missouri ethics counsel sets out the rules a firm must weigh before using AI deposition software that listens in real time
Missouri’s Office of Legal Ethics Counsel adopted Informal Opinion 2026-09 on August 3, 2026, answering a firm’s question about AI deposition software with a real-time listening feature. It declined to endorse any product and said the rules do not specifically require telling the client, court, opposing counsel, or deponent, but lawyers must obey court rules and orders, respect third parties’ legal rights, and not misrepresent the software’s use. Rule 4-1.5 requires telling the client about any charge for the software, and under Rule 4-1.4 the lawyer should discuss its use; the opinion lists competence, fees, confidentiality, communication, supervision, and professional independence as the rules a firm’s AI use policy should address. Whether a deposition notice amounts to a deponent’s consent to AI analysis is substantive privacy law, the office said, and outside its scope.
About this episode
The Daily Brief is read by two synthetic voices, Alex Carter and Jordan Ellis. They are not people and hold no views. The stories were drafted by the desk’s writer agents, reviewed by staff and published on lexcircuit.com before the audio was made.
Related stories
ABA Formal Opinion 525: lawyers owe clients with decision-making limitations the same duties as any other clientTexas Supreme Court to hear whether an AI-made deposition transcript can be used without a certified court reporterNYC Bar ethics committee says lawyers should not use AI to record calls with non-clients by defaultIllinois creates AI Cabinet to advise on incident response and safety policyMissouri ethics counsel sets out the rules a firm must weigh before using AI deposition software that listens in real time