Most attorneys know the duty of competence in general terms. Fewer have looked closely at what it now says about technology. Over the past decade, bar authorities have made explicit what was already implied: an attorney cannot be competent while ignoring the tools the practice runs on.
That has left many managing partners and office administrators with a reasonable question. What does the rule actually require, and how much of it falls to the firm as a whole rather than to each lawyer?
What the Rules Say
The American Bar Association added language on technology to the commentary on the model competence rule in 2012, and most states have followed with their own versions. Texas did so in 2019, when the Texas Supreme Court amended the comment to Rule 1.01 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. It now states that maintaining competence includes keeping abreast of the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.
The wording is short, and it is worth noticing what it does not say. It does not require attorneys to become technicians, to hold certifications, or to personally configure anything. It asks them to understand, at a level suited to their practice, what the technology they rely on can do for the client and what it can put at risk.
What That Means in Practice
Read together with the duty of confidentiality and the obligation to supervise those who assist the lawyer, the competence duty tends to come down to a few practical expectations:
- Knowing what technology the firm actually uses for client work, including email, document storage, practice management, remote access, and any AI tools
- Understanding the main risks of those tools well enough to make informed decisions, or knowing when to ask someone who does
- Taking reasonable steps to protect client information that passes through them
- Supervising vendors and outside providers who handle the firm's systems or data, much as the firm would supervise any nonlawyer assistance
- Staying current as tools change, which now includes the rapid arrival of AI
The standard is reasonableness, not perfection. No rule expects a small firm to match the technology budget of a large one. It does expect a firm to have thought about the question and to be able to show that it did.
Competence Does Not Mean Doing It Yourself
Ethics guidance has generally accepted that an attorney can meet the duty by relying on qualified help. A firm that engages a knowledgeable IT provider and asks the right questions is in a stronger position than one where an attorney or paralegal quietly handles IT on the side without the training or tools for it.
That reliance has limits, though. The responsibility stays with the attorney, so the firm should understand what its provider is doing, and should not assume that a protection exists simply because it was never discussed. The gap between what a firm assumes is covered and what is actually in place is exactly where competence problems tend to surface.
Where Firms Commonly Fall Short
The shortfalls are rarely dramatic. They tend to look like ordinary neglect: no one at the firm can say with confidence what is being backed up and whether it has ever been restored, multi-factor authentication is switched on for some systems and not others, former staff still have access, or an AI tool is being used without any firm decision about it. None of these requires specialized knowledge to notice. They require someone to be responsible for looking.
Turning the Duty Into a Routine
The most useful response is a modest, repeatable routine. Keep a current list of the systems and tools in use. Ask the firm's IT provider, at least once a year, to walk through what is protected and what is not. Document decisions about new tools before they are adopted. Make sure staff know the firm's rules for handling client information. A firm that does these things can demonstrate a good-faith effort to meet the standard, which is what a regulator, a client, or an insurer will ask to see.
This post is general information, not legal advice. Questions about how the rules apply to a specific situation belong with the firm's own counsel or the state bar's ethics resources.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the duty of technology competence apply to Texas attorneys?
Yes. In 2019 the Texas Supreme Court amended the comment to Rule 1.01 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct to state that competence includes awareness of the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.
Do attorneys need to be IT experts to comply?
No. The duty is to understand the technology relevant to the practice well enough to use it appropriately and protect clients, or to get qualified help when needed. It does not require technical certifications or hands-on administration.
Can a firm meet the duty by hiring an outside IT provider?
Relying on qualified help is generally acceptable, but responsibility remains with the attorneys. The firm should understand what its provider is doing, ask what protections are in place, and supervise the relationship rather than assume everything is handled.
Does the rule apply to AI tools?
AI tools are technology the firm may be using, so the competence duty applies to them. That means understanding what a tool does, what it risks for client information, and whether its output must be verified before it is relied on.
How can a firm show that it has met the standard?
By documenting reasonable, repeatable steps: a current list of systems in use, periodic reviews with its IT provider, written decisions about new tools, and staff guidance on handling client information. Records of that effort matter if the firm is ever asked.
Next Step
If your firm would like a plain look at what is and is not actually protected today, we offer a 15-minute call to see if we're a fit. No pitch, no obligation.
Managing partners and office administrators can reach us at 325-643-8184 or through the contact form at apollocomputers.com.
