Concierra Legal Brings Constitutional Access Argument to Texas Supreme Court AI Deposition Case
Representing the Institute for Constitutional AI Law in In re Hughey, the firm urges the Court to preserve access to
Press Release Disclaimer: This is a press release distributed through the XPR Media network. It has not been independently verified by our newsroom.
Frisco, TEXAS, Sept. 22, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Concierra Legal today filed an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court of Texas on behalf of the Institute for Constitutional AI Law (CAIL), bringing a constitutional access-to-justice argument to a dispute over AI-assisted deposition transcripts. In In re Patrick Hughey, No. 25-0463, the Institute asks the Court to consider how restrictions on less costly methods of recording and transcribing testimony affect meaningful access to the courts.
Michelle May O’Neil, Founder & CEO of Concierra Legal, a strategic, appellate-forward boutique law firm in Frisco, Texas
The brief supports Hughey and urges a narrow decision enforcing the balance already established by Texas procedure: litigants may use authorized nonstenographic deposition methods, while courts retain authority to require a certified transcript for good cause. CAIL argues that preserving this balance gives effect to the Texas Constitution’s open-courts guarantee without sacrificing the reliability of the record.
Meaningful Access to Courts in the Age of AI
CAIL’s position connects the cost of creating a litigation record with the practical ability to pursue or defend a claim. The Institute argues that access to courts depends in part on whether litigants can afford the procedures required to present their cases. When a less costly method satisfies the governing rules, the brief contends, preserving that option advances meaningful access to justice.
The Institute’s interest is the constitutional framework governing the use of technology in the justice system. Its brief asks the Court to preserve reliable evidence and judicial oversight while allowing litigants to benefit from technological advances. The filing discloses that neither the Institute nor anyone involved in preparing the brief has a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the proceeding. Concierra Legal prepared the brief on a volunteer basis, with no fee paid or to be paid.
What Is at Stake in In re Hughey
The case concerns a written transcript prepared with AI assistance from a deposition recorded using nonstenographic artificial intelligence means. A Montgomery County, Texas trial court struck the transcript and prohibited its use. Hughey seeks mandamus relief from the Supreme Court of Texas.
The Institute argues that Rules 199.1 and 203.6 permit nonstenographic recording and use of a written transcription while preserving distinct burdens. The proponent must establish a proper recording and an adequate foundation for the transcription. A party seeking the additional safeguard of a complete certified transcript must show good cause. According to the brief, the trial court converted that conditional safeguard into a categorical requirement by striking the transcription because no certified shorthand reporter was used.
The brief also notes that the court-reporting profession already uses AI-assisted software. It argues that attorneys and litigants following authorized nonstenographic procedures should be able to benefit from comparable technological advances, subject to the governing safeguards. The Institute contends that reliability should turn on whether the record can be preserved, verified, challenged, and corrected.
The Constitution Does Not Choose a Technology
“The Constitution does not choose a technology,” said Michelle May O’Neil, founder of Concierra Legal representing the Institute for Constitutional AI Law. “It protects access to courts. The cost of making a record can determine whether someone can afford to pursue a claim or defend against one. Courts must insist on accuracy, and litigants should be able to use less costly methods that satisfy the rules.”
Why the Record Matters: An Appellate Perspective
O’Neil brings 34 years of trial and appellate experience to the filing, including more than 195 appellate matters and 55 matters before the Supreme Court of Texas. That experience informs the brief’s emphasis on preserving both an accurate record and a meaningful opportunity to obtain judicial review.
The brief argues that Texas has long permitted nonstenographic deposition methods and that existing procedural safeguards can operate consistently with statutes regulating certified shorthand reporters. It asks the Court to enforce those procedures, including authentication, challenges to accuracy, and certified retranscription when good cause is shown, rather than presume a defect based solely on the technology used.
The Institute asks the Supreme Court of Texas to grant the petition for writ of mandamus and direct the trial court to vacate its order striking Hughey’s written transcription. Through the filing, Concierra Legal presents the Institute’s position that meaningful access to courts and a trustworthy record are complementary requirements of the justice system.
About Concierra Legal
Concierra Legal is a Texas law practice led by trial and appellate attorney Michelle May O’Neil. The firm provides appellate representation and strategic counsel in consequential legal matters, drawing on more than three decades of litigation experience. Its work includes appeals, original proceedings, and strategic guidance on preserving issues for appellate review. This press release does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. More information is available at ConcierraLegal.com.
About the Institute for Constitutional AI Law
The Institute for Constitutional AI Law (CAIL) examines how AI and emerging technologies affect legal institutions, the justice system, and the people they serve. Its work addresses constitutional protections, judicial innovation, and responsible AI governance. More information is available at ConstitutionalAILaw.org.
About Michelle May O’Neil
Michelle May O’Neil is Board Certified in Family Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and has 34 years of trial and appellate experience. She has tried more than 37 jury trials and handled more than 195 appellate matters, including 55 matters before the Supreme Court of Texas and a filing in the United States Supreme Court. She is recognized among the Best Lawyers in America and Texas Super Lawyers, including the Top 50 Women Texas Super Lawyers and Top 100 Dallas/Fort Worth Super Lawyers lists. She founded Concierra Legal. Her work addresses the intersection of appellate advocacy, artificial intelligence, and access to justice.
Press Inquiries
Michelle May O’Neil
michelle [at] concierralegal.com
214-676-9051
https://ConcierraLegal.com
5 Cowboys Way
Suite 300, MB #90
Frisco, Texas 75034
