Technology Literacy Is Now Table Stakes for Legal Counsel

In nearly every specialized practice area, technical literacy is a baseline expectation. Oil and gas attorneys speak fluently about drilling operations; healthcare lawyers understand reimbursement mechanics and clinical workflows; maritime practitioners know vessels and port operations. Yet many technology lawyers still treat the software, data, and AI systems they regulate as opaque black boxes. That gap creates bad laws, broken contracts, and missed opportunities for clients.

Understanding technology isn't optional — it's the baseline for competent legal counsel.

What Technology-Fluent Counsel Looks Like

Technology literacy is less about writing code and more about speaking the language of engineers and product teams. Effective counsel can:

• Ask precise questions about model architectures, training data, and deployment contexts.
• Distinguish between rule-based systems, classical ML models, and generative AI — and why those distinctions matter legally.
• Draft agreements that reflect real development lifecycles, from agile sprints to acceptance testing and rollout plans.
• Map data flows across production, analytics, logging, and backup environments to give privacy advice that is achievable in practice.

The TRAIGA Problem: When Definitions Miss the Technology

The Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA) takes effect January 1, 2026. It defines an “artificial intelligence system” as any machine-based system that “infers from inputs” how to generate outputs that influence physical or virtual environments. For anyone with a software background, that definition sweeps in almost every modern application:

• Recommendation engines and chatbots clearly qualify.
• Dynamic pricing, inventory forecasting, and even spreadsheet formulas arguably fit.
• Any system that personalizes content or triggers automation could fall under the statute.

The likely intent was to regulate high-risk AI, but the text captures conventional software because it uses imprecise technical terminology. Technical fluency would have spotted the overbreadth before the bill was signed.

Why This Matters for Businesses

For companies operating in or selling to Texas, TRAIGA introduces immediate questions:

• Which systems truly trigger AI-related obligations versus routine software controls?
• How do you align with safe harbors like the NIST AI Risk Management Framework without overbuilding compliance?
• What documentation and governance evidence will regulators expect from systems that were never designed as “AI”?

Answering those questions requires counsel who can trace how your systems actually function — not just paraphrase statutory text.

Long-Term Consequences of Tech-Blind Drafting

We have seen this story before. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) never defined “authorization,” leading to decades of overbroad prosecutions and civil disputes. Only after Van Buren v. United States did the Supreme Court narrow the statute to access-based violations instead of mere misuse. Technical ambiguity in legal text has real human and business consequences.

How I Bridge Law and Code

I practice as both an attorney and a software developer with more than fifteen years of engineering experience, including seven years working with AI systems. That background lets me:

• Spot drafting defects like TRAIGA’s overinclusive AI definition before they become compliance landmines.
• Design governance programs that focus on the actual risk profile of your architecture rather than generic checklists.
• Translate legal requirements into technical requirements your engineering team can implement.
• Navigate disputes by identifying the technical facts that change litigation strategy and outcomes.

Choosing Counsel for Technology Matters

If you are evaluating legal support for AI governance, software development, or data privacy, ask these questions:

1. Does your attorney have hands-on experience with the technologies at issue?
2. Can they explain how your systems work — beyond buzzwords — and why specific technical details matter legally?
3. Have they identified issues others missed because of their technical background?
4. Do they engage with developers, product teams, and the broader technology community?

I am not waiting for the legal profession to catch up. I am delivering technology-literate legal representation now for clients who need advice grounded in both code and law. If that is what your business needs, let’s talk.