--- title: "Law Council of Australia: AI and the profession" url: "https://ailawframework.com/frameworks/law-council-of-australia" type: "framework_note" site: "AI Law Framework" issuer: "Law Council of Australia" status: "The Council’s page is an index of constituent-body work. It does not impose a national conduct rule." checked: "2026-10-10" --- # Law Council of Australia: AI and the profession > The Council’s AI page collects what its constituent bodies have published. It does not replace those bodies’ guidance or the conduct rules. Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/frameworks/law-council-of-australia Checked: 2026-10-10 Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt The Council’s page is an index of constituent-body work. It does not impose a national conduct rule. The Council’s AI page collects what its constituent bodies have published. It does not replace those bodies’ guidance or the conduct rules. This is a reading aid for an Australian law firm. It is not legal advice, not a certification, and not a finding that a tool or a firm complies. The sentences paraphrase the sources listed, checked on the date shown. Where a standard is sold by ISO or the AICPA, the page uses the publisher’s public description and does not reproduce the standard. ## What it is The Law Council of Australia’s page, Artificial Intelligence and the Legal Profession, treats AI as an issue for the profession and points to work by constituent bodies. The page, as retrieved on 10 October 2026, describes the Law Institute of Victoria’s AI Hub, the Law Society of New South Wales materials including the solicitor’s guide, the glossary, the court-protocol index and the Uniform Law statement, and the Queensland Law Society’s guidance statement, companion guide and template policy. The Council is the peak body. A page that lists constituent-body resources does not itself create a conduct rule. Solicitors are regulated by their local authority and bound by the conduct rules in force where they practise. Where the Council has published the Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules as a model, the in-force text is the text adopted in the jurisdiction. The confidentiality page uses the New South Wales in-force compilation of the Uniform Law rules. ## Who it applies to The Council’s page is for the Australian profession as a whole, in the sense that it points each reader to their own constituent body. It does not impose a single national AI licence condition. A reader in New South Wales, Victoria or Queensland should follow the page for that body. A reader elsewhere should not stop at this collection. ## What it asks of a law firm using AI - Use the Council’s page as an index. The obligations are in the linked instruments: the conduct rules, the December 2024 statement, the January 2026 New South Wales guide, and Queensland Guidance Statement No. 37. - Do not cite “the Law Council” as the author of a prohibition or a permission that appears only in a constituent body’s document. - The Council does not, on the page checked, certify legal AI products or publish a list of approved tools. ## How it maps to this framework | This site’s question | What the instrument says that bears on it | | --- | --- | | Efficiency: Whether the tool saves total human work at the quality the task needs. | Not set here. | | Effectiveness: Whether the output is good enough for the task. The catalogue does not score this. | The constituent documents the Council points to all require a lawyer to check AI output. That is the effectiveness point. The Council page does not add a different test. | | Due diligence: What the firm has actually read about hosting, training and assurance before it relies on the tool. | The Council page is a map of who has published what. Due diligence on a product is still the firm’s reading of that product, against the guidance of the society that covers the practice. | | Confidentiality: Whether client and other confidential information can go into the tool. | The Council does not restate rule 9 on the page checked. The duty is on the confidentiality page and in the society guidance the Council lists. | | Disclosure: When the firm tells the client, and where required the court or another party, that AI was used. | Disclosure expectations differ in the documents the Council lists. The December 2024 statement and Queensland Guidance Statement No. 37 are not worded identically. Read the one that applies. Do not average them into a national rule the Council has not issued. | | Certifications: ISO, SOC 2 and IRAP names recorded against the tool. A listed name is not a finding that the certificate covers the firm’s plan. | Not set here. | | Data residency: Where the tool holds data, including whether that place is recorded as Australia. | Not set here. | ## Sources - [Law Council of Australia, Artificial Intelligence and the Legal Profession](https://www.lawcouncil.au/policy-agenda/advancing-the-profession/artificial-intelligence-and-the-legal-profession) ## Related pages - [Law Society of New South Wales: AI and cyber security](https://ailawframework.com/frameworks/law-society-nsw.md) - [Law Institute of Victoria AI Hub](https://ailawframework.com/frameworks/law-institute-victoria.md) - [Queensland Law Society Guidance Statement No. 37](https://ailawframework.com/frameworks/queensland-law-society.md) - [Solicitor confidentiality](https://ailawframework.com/frameworks/solicitor-confidentiality.md)