AI LAWFRAMEWORK

Start here

AI for barristers in Australia

A barrister’s starting point is the court of the brief. Research tools come after the practice note, and a second generative tool does not verify a citation.

Start this task

Build an issue-to-document evidence table

Next steps

  1. Read the barristers’ guide

    It points at the court note and the research profiles. It is not a brief to accept.

  2. Open the note for the court you are in

    SC Gen 23 sets separate rules for witness evidence and for submissions. SC Gen 25 requires a person to verify the document, and one AI tool cannot confirm another. GPN-AI treats affidavits and expert reports differently from pleadings and submissions.

  3. Then the state of the brief

    If the brief is in a state court, the state page lists that court’s note and any tribunal direction.

  4. Use a research profile as a description, not a check

    Open the authority. The profile does not check the pinpoint.

State or territory

Open the place you practise in, or the place named on the file. Each page lists the courts, tribunals, regulators and law society notes recorded there.

Court notes

Plain-English notes already on this site. The court’s own instrument is the rule.

  • High Court of Australia

    A proceeding in the High Court is not a Federal Court proceeding and not a state Supreme Court proceeding. Open the High Court’s current practice directions. If no AI note is published, verify every citation in an official report or authorised source and do not invent a disclosure clause from another court.

  • Federal Court of Australia

    GPN-AI is the Federal Court’s practice note on generative artificial intelligence. The 16 April 2026 notice says it explains what the technology is, accepts that it can help with cost and access, and requires use to stay consistent with existing legal and professional obligations.

  • Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia

    Family and migration files in the Federal Circuit and Family Court follow that Court’s practice direction, not the Federal Court’s GPN-AI and not a state Supreme Court note.

  • Supreme Court of New South Wales

    SC Gen 23 allows some preparatory uses, including chronologies, indexes and summaries, and then sets separate rules for witness evidence, submissions and expert reports. Paragraphs 9A to 24 are the part to read against the document you are preparing.

  • Supreme Court of Victoria

    Court users may use AI in court documents if they comply with the note. Compliance includes meaningful human verification. One AI tool cannot be used to confirm another.

  • Supreme Court of Western Australia

    The guidelines apply to lawyers, self-represented people and expert witnesses in Supreme Court proceedings. Generated content relied on in the Court must be verified by a human who takes legal responsibility. Telling the Court that a tool prepared the document is not an answer to an error.

Rules and guidance

Published instruments. A secondary source is marked on the jurisdiction page it links to.

Guides

These guides are separate pages. This start path links to them.

Tasks to open

One task from each matching practice area. Read who may draft and what the lawyer checks, or start the assessment.

Checks that apply across files

Tools to read

Catalogue order, not a ranking. A listing is not approval to upload a file.

Practice areas · Court AI notes · Software catalogue

Questions

Which court note applies to a brief?

The note of the court you are appearing in. A chambers subscription does not import another court’s practice note.

Can a research tool check the citation?

No. Where a note covers submissions, a person verifies the authority. SC Gen 25 says one AI tool cannot confirm another. SC Gen 23 says the citation check in a submission must not be done only with a generative tool.

Where is the longer note for barristers?

The guide linked on this page. This page is the start path. It does not replace that guide or the court’s own instrument.