AI LAWFRAMEWORK

Start here

AI for in-house lawyers in Australia

An in-house lawyer’s starting point is the work, the confidentiality rule, and the regulator’s guidance. A court note matters when a document will be filed.

Start this task

Build a regulatory-change table for the jurisdictions the business operates in

Next steps

  1. Name the piece of work

    Contract review, privacy, employment and procurement are different tasks. Start with the one on your desk.

  2. Read the regulator and government notes

    Privacy, corporate and government-use guidance are not a court practice note, and they do not replace advice on the file.

  3. Separate hosting from a local office

    A vendor with Australian customers may still process the file offshore.

  4. If you will file, open the court note

    Fair Work and the Federal Court publish their own instruments. A state page covers a state court.

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.

  • 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.

  • Fair Work Commission

    If generative AI is used to create, write, edit or otherwise prepare an application, submission, witness statement or any other document in a Fair Work Commission matter, the Commission’s page says the person must tell the Commission that it was used and how, check the document so that the information is accurate, relevant and supported by real evidence and legal authorities, and state in the document that those checks were done.

Rules and guidance

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

  • Statement on the use of artificial intelligence in Australian legal practice

    Law Society of New South Wales, Legal Practice Board of Western Australia, and Victorian Legal Services Board + Commissioner — Joint statement of the Uniform Law regulators in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. Solicitors who use AI should consider disclosing to clients, if the client asks, when and how AI was used and how that use is reflected in costs. The statement does not prescribe an engagement-letter clause. Solicitors cannot safely enter confidential, sensitive or privileged client information into a public AI tool. A solicitor using AI to prepare documents must be able and qualified to personally verify the information and must actually ensure the contents are accurate.

  • Statement on the use of artificial intelligence in Australian legal practice

    Victorian Legal Services Board + Commissioner (with Uniform Law regulators) — Dated 6 December 2024. Joint statement of the Law Society of New South Wales, the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia and the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner. It applies existing Legal Profession Uniform Law duties; it does not create a new rule. Lawyers cannot safely enter confidential, sensitive or privileged client information into public AI chatbots or copilots such as ChatGPT, or any other public tool. Commercial tools used with client information require a careful review of the contract so the information will be kept secure (ASCR r 9.1; Barristers' Rules r 114). AI chatbots, copilots and other tools based on large language models cannot reason, understand or advise. The lawyer must exercise their own forensic judgment and must not treat the output as a substitute for their own assessment (ASCR r 4.1.4; Barristers' Rules rr 3(b), 4(e) and 42). No tool based on current large language models can be free of hallucinations. A lawyer who uses AI to prepare documents must be qualified to verify them and must actually ensure they are accurate and not likely to mislead the client, the court or another party (ASCR rr 4.1.2 and 4.1.3; Barristers' Rules rr 4(c)-(d), 8(a) and 35). Time and work items billed must accurately represent work done by the practice. AI use should not increase the client's costs above traditional methods, for example by extra time spent verifying or correcting output (Uniform Law ss 172-173; ASCR r 12.2). The statement also says lawyers using AI should consider risk-based policies on which tools may be used, by whom, for what, and with what information, including supervision of junior and support staff and verification before documents are settled; should limit use to lower-risk tasks that are easier to verify, with the examples of drafting a polite email or suggesting how to structure an argument; and should not use it for higher-risk tasks given as examples of translating advice into another language, analysing an unfamiliar legal concept, or executive decision-making. They should record and, where necessary or appropriate, disclose to the client, the court and fellow practitioners when and how AI was used, and how that use is reflected in costs if the client asks. The regulators say they will review the guidance as use evolves.

  • Using artificial intelligence in external reviews or privacy complaints

    Office of the Information Commissioner Queensland — OIC Qld guidance for RTI external-review applicants and privacy complainants who use AI.

  • Statement on the use of AI in Australian legal practice (adopted)

    Legal Practice Board of WA — LPBWA publishes the Uniform Law regulators' joint AI statement for WA practitioners.

  • Fact sheet: Complainant use of AI

    Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner SA — SA LPCC fact sheet on complainants using generative AI (Gemini, Copilot, ChatGPT) to prepare complaints.

  • LPBT Update - Mediation and Generative AI viewed through a regulatory lens

    Legal Profession Board of Tasmania — Legal Profession Board of Tasmania update (published by the Law Society of Tasmania, May 2025) setting out the Board's regulatory view of GenAI risks and expectations for practitioners.

Guides

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

  • Australian data hosting for legal AI

    How to read a vendor’s Australian hosting claim, using the attributes this catalogue already records. Not a ranking, and not a finding that a tool is fit for a matter.

  • Law firm AI policy guide for Australia

    A plain-English list of decisions an Australian firm writes into its own generative AI policy. It is not a precedent to adopt, and it is not a law society template.

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

Does a law firm AI policy bind an in-house team?

Only if the organisation adopts it. The policy guide is a list of decisions, not a precedent. Regulator guidance on privacy and AI is a different document.

When does a court note apply?

When a document is being prepared for a court or tribunal. Name that forum. Internal advice that is never filed still has confidentiality and professional duties.

Does Australian hosting decide the tool?

No. Hosting is one question. The task, the contract, and any court note are others. A profile is not an approval.