Start here
If you are representing yourself, start with the court or tribunal named on your form. A generative tool is not a lawyer, and a public chatbot is the wrong place for your documents.
Start with the court or tribunal named on your form. These pages point at public documents. They do not act for you.
The Federal Court, the family court, the Fair Work Commission and each state court publish different directions. Read the one named on your file.
Some states have a practice note. Some pages record that no AI direction was found. Another state’s note is not your rule.
A leaflet for people without lawyers is not the same document as a lawyer’s practice direction. Follow the one that applies to you.
Names, addresses, medical information and evidence can be sensitive. This site does not act for you and does not give legal advice.
Open the state or territory named on your form. Each page lists the courts, tribunals and public notes recorded there. Another state’s note is not your rule.
Plain-English notes already on this site. The court’s own instrument is the rule.
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.
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.
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.
The Administrative Review Tribunal has its own generative AI practice direction. It is not GPN-AI and it is not a state Supreme Court note.
A County Court matter does not become a Supreme Court matter because SC Gen 25 is the better-known note. Open the County Court’s guidelines and follow those.
Published instruments. A secondary source is marked on the jurisdiction page it links to.
Personal Injury Commission (NSW) — PIC procedural direction for self-represented litigants (commencing 14 July 2026) with a section on using Gen AI, social media and online resources.
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal — QCAT resource page (with translated infographics) for people thinking of using AI to produce documents for QCAT, pointing to QCAT Practice Direction 10 of 2025 and the non-lawyer Gen AI guidelines.
Supreme Court of Western Australia — Guidelines for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence, issued by the Supreme Court of Western Australia and incorporated as Practice Direction 9.21 of the Consolidated Practice Directions on 10 December 2025. The Court's What's New page announced them on 20 November 2025. The standalone PDF has no date on its face. The guidelines are not a ban. They apply to lawyers, non-lawyers, self-represented litigants and expert witnesses in civil and criminal proceedings. Generative artificial intelligence predicts words and is not a substitute for research or oversight. Public tools may store and reuse prompts. The listed risks include outdated or incomplete material, fabricated citations, the wrong jurisdiction and bias. Content that is relied on must be verified by a human who takes legal responsibility. Saying that a document was prepared with artificial intelligence is not an answer to errors. The practitioner who files or signs is personally responsible. Information obtained from other parties must not be used for a collateral purpose without leave or until it is in evidence. Confidential, suppressed or privileged information should not be entered into a public or unsecured tool. Affidavits and witness statements must be in the witness's own words, and artificial intelligence must not substitute the witness's voice. Expert reports must comply with the Harmonised Expert Witness Code in Practice Direction 4.5.2.1. A person must not mislead the Court or another party about how a document was produced, and must disclose the use when the Court directs or where it is otherwise necessary or appropriate. The text is guidance, published as Practice Direction 9.21.
South Australian Employment Tribunal — Information sheet for self-represented litigants, published by SAET alongside the SA courts' Gen AI guidelines, on restrictions on uploading litigation documents and verifying AI-supplied sources.
Law Society of Tasmania — Law Letter article using In the matter of Lanmar Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] NSWSC to show the risks of non-lawyers relying on ChatGPT, and comparing the Federal Court GPN-AI, NSW SC Gen 23 and Victoria's SC Gen 25.
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia — Applies to all proceedings in FCFCOA Divisions 1 and 2 and to litigants (including self-represented), lawyers, experts and all court users.
These pages are written for lawyers deciding how a tool may be used on a task. They are not a guide to running your case, and they are not legal advice.
Family Law
Family Violence & Protection Orders
Debt Recovery & Civil Enforcement
Residential Conveyancing & Property
Employment & Workplace Relations (incl. WHS)
Personal Injury & Compensation (workers compensation, CTP/TAC, medical negligence)
Applies across files.
Practice areas · Court AI notes · Software catalogue
This site does not advise you to. Queensland’s guidelines for non-lawyers say a generative chatbot is not a substitute for a lawyer and should not be your main source of legal information. Legal Aid NSW says it cannot tell you what to do in your case. Read the note for your court.
The court or tribunal on your form. If you are in a state court and cannot see a note, read that state’s page, including any sentence that no direction was found. Do not copy another state’s clause.
No. These pages point at public court and regulator documents. They do not act for you, and a software profile is not a recommendation to upload your file.
