Guide
A way to research Australian law with a generative tool without treating its answer as the authority. The check is still opening the case.
Prefer a research product that searches Australian cases and legislation, such as Lexis+ AI, a Westlaw Australia workflow, Habeas or JADE, over a general chatbot with no corpus. Queensland Guidance Statement No. 37 asks you to read how the provider stores and reuses confidential material before a client file goes in. Record the product and the tenancy on the matter, not a personal login.
Name the forum and the date you care about in the question: “New South Wales Court of Appeal, as at today, on this point.” A tool that answers “in Australia” will mix Commonwealth and state lines. The Law Society of New South Wales solicitor’s guide treats understanding a tool’s limits as part of competence, and an undated question hides those limits.
Ask for the case name, medium-neutral citation and the paragraph that is said to support the sentence. NSW Supreme Court Practice Note SC Gen 23 and Federal Court GPN-AI both require the authority to exist, to be accurate and to support the proposition. A citation with no pinpoint is not yet a research result.
Open the case or section on AustLII or JADE and read the passage. Do not ask a second generative tool to confirm the first. SC Gen 23 says verification of authorities must not be carried out only by a generative tool. Supreme Court of Victoria Practice Note SC Gen 25, which replaced the May 2024 guidelines on 14 May 2026, says the same about asking one generative tool to confirm another. It does allow a check against original source material housed inside a generative tool.
Note who opened the authorities, the date, and any citation you removed. The Uniform Law regulators’ statement keeps responsibility with the solicitor who relies on the output. If the research will be filed, read the practice note of that court before you sign.
Record the checks: Commercial litigation tasks · Open the court note for the forum · Read the Lexis+ AI with Protégé profile before you upload a file
On a small screen, scroll the table sideways.
| Tool | Australian data hosting | Profile region | Pricing model | Capabilities |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lexis+ AI with Protégé | Offered | yes | Enterprise quote · Pricing | Legal research, Case-law summarisation, Contract drafting, Document summarisation, Chronology building, Knowledge search, Agentic workflows |
| Habeas | Offered | yes | Usage or credits · Pricing | Legal research, Case-law summarisation, Contract drafting, Document summarisation |
| JADE Professional | Offered | yes | Per seat · Pricing | Legal research, Case-law summarisation |
| Practical Law Australia | See the comparison that lists it | unknown | Not established | Legal research, Knowledge search, Document summarisation, Clause libraries and playbooks, Agentic workflows, Advice and memoranda drafting, Legislative comparison |
Commercial litigation tasks · NSW SC Gen 23 · Federal Court GPN-AI · Victoria SC Gen 25 · Legal research tools · All guides
Yes, as assistance. The solicitor remains responsible for competence under the conduct rules, and court notes such as SC Gen 23 and GPN-AI require a person to verify authorities before they are relied on.
This site’s catalogue includes Lexis+ AI Protege, Habeas, JADE and Practical Law Australia. A listing is not an approval, and a general chatbot is a different product from a research corpus.
No, where the court note covers the point. SC Gen 23 requires human verification of authorities. Open the case.
