Guide

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.

How to use AI for a law firm AI policy in Australia

Start from the Queensland Law Society template
Use the QLS artificial intelligence policy template as the heading list, then rewrite every heading in the firm’s words. A policy that only says “use AI responsibly” does not name a tool or a person. Guidance Statement No. 37 is the confidentiality reading that sits beside the template.
Name the approved tools
List the products, the tenancy and the work they may be used for. A personal chatbot login is not on that list unless the firm has accepted it in writing, which it usually should not. The joint law societies’ 2026 selection checklist is the set of questions to answer before a name is added.
Write the verification and confidentiality rules
Say what must never be pasted in, which court notes apply to the firm’s litigation, and that one generative tool does not verify another. The Uniform Law regulators’ statement and the Law Society of New South Wales solicitor’s guide are the conduct readings. The court notes are separate. A New South Wales sentence does not answer a Federal Court file.
Train the people the policy binds
Partners, employed solicitors, paralegals and contractors need the same list. Training is a session on the approved tools and the prohibited inputs, with a record of who attended. A PDF in a drawer is not training.
Set a review date
Read the policy again when a court note, a conduct guide or a vendor’s terms change, and on the date the policy itself names. The person who re-reads it is named. A policy from another year is a draft until that reading happens.

Record the checks on a task checklist · Open the court note for the forum

What the policy has to decide

The National AI Centre’s guidance on creating an AI policy, and the Law Society of New South Wales solicitor’s guide to responsible use, both start from the same place: name who may use a tool, on what work, and what must never be pasted in. A policy that only says “use AI responsibly” does not answer those questions.

Write the policy in the firm’s words. Vendor templates from practice-management companies are marketing documents. They are not the firm’s confidentiality settings and they are not the court’s disclosure rule.

Headings to fill in

Each heading is a decision. Leave it blank until someone can point at the tool, the matter type, and the person who checks the output.

Purpose and who it binds: partners, employed solicitors, paralegals, contractors, and barristers briefed by the firm.
Approved tools, and a ban on other accounts. A personal chatbot login is a different product from the firm’s tenancy.
Prohibited inputs: client names, privileged advice, subpoenaed and suppressed material, health information, and anything a court note says must stay out of a public tool.
Whether client consent is required before a tool processes their material, and where that consent is recorded.
Where the data sits. Link the hosting questions on the Australian data hosting guide. “The vendor has an Australian office” is not a hosting answer.
Which court notes apply to the firm’s litigation. A New South Wales policy does not answer a Federal Court or family-court file.
Who may rely on an output, and what they must open before they do. One generative tool does not verify another.
How use is recorded on the file, so a disclosure paragraph can be written from the record rather than from memory.
A review date, and who re-reads the court notes and the vendor terms when they change.

Law society material to read first

The Law Society of New South Wales publishes a solicitor’s guide to responsible use of artificial intelligence. Victoria’s Legal Services Board and Commissioner has published a statement on the use of AI in Australian legal practice. The Queensland Law Society’s Guidance Statement No. 37 asks whether the provider’s terms clearly say how confidential data is stored, reused and shared. Western Australia, South Australia and the other societies keep their own hubs.

Those documents do not replace the Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules as in force for the practising certificate: competence, confidentiality, and the duty to the court. A policy that conflicts with a court note is the wrong policy for that file.

Sources

Draft a firm policy from your records · Australian data hosting guide · AI practice notes by Australian court · AI tools by kind of work · Choosing a legal AI tool · Law society and privacy guidance · All guides

Questions

Is this a generative AI law firm policy template for Australia?

No. It is the list of decisions the firm’s own policy has to make. Copying another organisation’s template does not set your tenancy, your client terms, or your court’s disclosure rule.

What do Australian law societies ask for?

Start with the Law Society of New South Wales solicitor’s guide, the Victorian Legal Services Board statement, and Queensland Guidance Statement No. 37. Then read the society for the practising certificate you actually hold.

How should the policy deal with courts?

Name the forum. Link the practice note for that court, and do not write one disclosure sentence that pretends to satisfy the Federal Court, the family court and a state Supreme Court.

How often is a policy reviewed?

When a court note, a conduct ruling, or a vendor’s terms change, and on a date the policy itself sets. A policy from another year is a draft until someone re-reads the sources.