AI’s Role in Reviving Texas Jury Trials

“… the right of trial by jury, that palladium of civil liberty, and only safe guarantee for the life, liberty, and property of the citizen.” – Texas Declaration of Independence (March 2, 1836)

Unfortunately, the steady decline of civil jury trials has shaped the litigation landscape in Texas and across the nation for decades. Although multiple factors — mandatory arbitration, skyrocketing discovery costs, docket congestion — contribute to this trend, the emergence of reliable artificial intelligence tools may offer a realistic path to reversing it.

By dramatically lowering the time and expense associated with pretrial phases, such as document review, legal research and motion practice, AI could shrink the economic gulf that dissuades parties from trying cases and, in the process, relieve persistent access-to-justice pressures.

This article discusses research on AI in the courts, explains how generative and predictive systems could reinvigorate the Texas trial docket and proposes concrete steps for judges, law firms, corporate counsel and the Legislature to harness AI’s upside to increase jury trials and expand justice access.

The Vanishing Texas Trial

The percentage of cases reaching a verdict in Texas has been declining for decades. Few civil cases in state and federal courts go to jury trials. Two main cost drivers are extensive e-discovery and lengthy pretrial motions. High fees lead parties to settle or opt for alternative dispute resolution. Reducing these litigation costs using AI could result in more cases going to trial, making it an efficient way to resolve disputes. And predictive analytics trained on Texas verdict databases could estimate liability exposure and probable damages ranges, leading to data-driven decisions when approaching trial.

How Embracing AI Can Attack Litigation Cost Centers

Discovery

AI-augmented review platforms already classify, cluster and privilege-screen terabytes of data at accuracy rates exceeding manual review while cutting review hours by up to 70 percent. And as early as 2023, Goldman Sachs believed 44 percent of all legal tasks could be automated. Texas counsel using these tools in Rule 196 productions or Rule 502 privilege assessments can recoup millions that would otherwise be passed to clients, increasing legal cost burden and disincentivizing taking trial-worthy cases to trial. AI could also lead to sharper proportionality arguments about discovery.

Legal Research and Brief Drafting

Large language models fine-tuned on Texas and Fifth Circuit authority generate first-draft briefs, analyze precedent and propose argument outlines in minutes rather than days. Lawyers can then devote more time to strategy, planning and preparation, increasing persuasion and effectiveness. Of course, as Ethan Mollick teaches, and the professional rules of responsibility require, lawyers must remain “the human in the loop.” More on Mollick below.

Trial Preparation

AI speech-to-text engines create real-time deposition transcripts and flag testimony inconsistencies. Scenario-planning agents simulate voir dire mockups and cross-examination sequences, allowing trial teams to rehearse more efficiently and at lower cost than traditional consultants and focus groups hired for trial preparation.

Potential Improvements (and Concerns) for Access to Justice

A related issue to the vanishing jury trial, the access-to-justice gap remains acute in Texas, where significant legal deserts and sustained population growth leave thousands of litigants self-represented at best and with no direction to vindicate their rights at worst. While some lawyers may be concerned that AI could eliminate the need for lawyers altogether, one of Ethan Mollick’s four rules in his book Co-intelligence: Living and Working with AI — i.e., “Be the Human in the Loop,” verifying AI outputs  because of hallucinations (generation of inaccurate information) — suggests that fear is misplaced. Yet, that rule does highlight that pro se litigants should be wary of using AI to replace a lawyer due to the inherent complexities and nuances of legal practice, which often require legal knowledge, legal professional judgment and contextual understanding that current AI models may lack.  

Still, AI tools could be targeted to help everyday Texans evaluate whether they have viable claims and identify the right attorney to retain. This would benefit Texans with legitimate claims and simultaneously reduce courthouse bottlenecks. And more broadly, if AI curbs litigation expenditures such that contingency-fee and limited-scope arrangements become financially viable in a larger class of cases, even more Texans at the cusp of affordability will also benefit from greater representation once cost-benefit calculations are shifted.

Preparing the Texas Bar for an AI-Driven Future

There is a growing expectation that lawyers must be technologically competent, and some states (such as California and Florida) have issued guidance or are developing rules on AI use in legal practice. Texas litigators must recognize that the use of AI in legal practice is not just a matter of efficiency but also of professional responsibility.

The duty of technological competence now includes understanding and managing the risks and benefits of AI tools. Lawyers must supervise AI-generated work, verify its accuracy, and ensure that client confidentiality is maintained at all times. If using AI platforms that process client data, informed client consent and robust security measures are essential.

Invest in AI Literacy

The Supreme Court of Texas should consider amending the Texas Lawyer’s Creed and MCLE requirements to include AI competency credits, mirroring Article 4 of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act, which mandates a sufficient level of AI literacy for AI providers, deployers and their staff.

Standardize Court Tech

Building on existing e-filing infrastructure, the Texas Legislature should establish (and Texas courts should adopt) interoperable data standards like the National Open Court Data Standards developed by the Conference of State Court Administrators and best practices to permit seamless AI integration for docket analytics, default-judgment review and customer-service triage bots.

Develop Judicial Training and Bench Protocols

Texas state courts should adopt guidelines for potential judicial uses of AI like those published by five federal judges and a lawyer/computer science professor in volume 26 of the Sedona Conference Journal. Further, judicial continuing-education programs should address AI-generated filings, standards for reliability, and protocols for requesting algorithmic explainability, ensuring judges can manage AI-enabled dockets without compromising procedural fairness.

Call to Action: Embrace, Educate, Evolve, Empower       

In conclusion, Texas lawyers should:

·       Embrace AI as a tool for improving preparation, jury trials, and access to justice;

·       Educate ourselves and our teams about AI’s capabilities and limitations;

·       Evolve workflows to integrate AI while maintaining the “human in the loop” for oversight; and

·       Empower courts, colleagues and clients through training and transparent communication.

Throughout the history of our profession, new technologies like email and instant messaging have raised concerns among cautious-by-nature practitioners about their ability to adopt these tools while safeguarding client confidentiality. It was nevertheless vital that they adapt to these advancements to uphold their duty to maintain technological competence. And while artificial intelligence may not single-handedly resurrect the jury trial, it could dismantle economic barriers that steer Texas litigants toward settlement or prohibit courthouse access. By slashing pretrial expenditures, AI could restore cost proportionality, making the courthouse a rational venue for dispute resolution. Concurrently, AI-powered self-help tools can chip away at the state’s access-to-justice deficit.

Realizing these benefits demands proactive stewardship by Texas lawyers, judges and policymakers — updating ethical norms, investing in literacy and crafting regulations that encourage innovation while safeguarding privacy. If we rise to the challenge, the next decade could mark not the continued decline of jury trials in Texas, but their renaissance.