Courts often rely on the factors outlined in Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equip. Corp. to determine whether attorney fees are reasonable. These factors include, but are not limited to: - the time and labor required - the skill required to perform the legal service properly - the experience…and ability of the lawyer performing the services At what point does the competent use of AI—on the tasks where AI is demonstrably effective—cut against these factors? Just as shifting the cost of two hours of reporter research is unreasonable when @LexisNexis or @Westlaw does the same work in minutes, the failure to competently use AI on appropriate tasks will soon be unreasonable as well. In certain circumstances, I would argue it already is. The point is narrower than it may first appear. Strategy, judgment, advocacy, and the exercise of professional discretion are not volume tasks, and AI does not displace the hours required to do them well. But high-volume, pattern-driven work is a different matter. For example, is it reasonable to bill 8 hours to review hundreds of documents when a competent AI-assisted workflow produces a better result in a fraction of the time? See x.com/bradleybclark/status/2…. None of this is settled. What constitutes "competent" AI use is itself a developing standard, and good-faith disagreement about where the line sits is part of the current moment. But the Arthur Andersen factors ask what the work required, not what the work took — and that distinction is going to matter more every year. #LegalAI #LegalEthics #AI @statebaroftexas @legalethicstx @TexasBarCLE

NEW EPISODE: @Judgeschlegel joins us to talk about the Judicial AI Consortium, the social contract of human adjudication, and where courts are drawing the line on AI. texappcounsel.com/2026/03/e1…