Courts and Tribunals Judiciary (England and Wales)
2026-10-09
Published 9 October 2026. Sets out how the judiciary of England and Wales uses and governs AI. It complements, and does not replace, the AI Guidance for Judicial Office Holders updated in October 2025.
AI will support but not replace judicial decision-making, and only approved tools may be used
A judicial office holder remains accountable and must review, verify and approve every AI output used in judicial work
commences (issued 12 December 2025) · Effective 2026-01-12
Commences 12 January 2026 and applies to all Local Court proceedings. Paragraph 1.2 adopts Supreme Court Practice Note SC Gen 23 in its current form and as amended. The Local Court note does not add a separate disclosure formula.
The Local Court of New South Wales adopts the Supreme Court Practice Note SC Gen 23 – Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI) in its current form and as it may from time to time be amended.
signed by the Chief Justice · Effective 2025-09-24
Signed 24 September 2025. For written submissions, the responsible person must be named at the end of the document. Where that person is a legal practitioner, the individual must be named, not only the firm. The responsible person must verify the accuracy and relevance of references to legislation, authorities or other sources. The direction does not require a statement that generative AI was used.
For written submissions to the Court, the person or persons who take responsibility for the contents of the document (the responsible person(s)) must be identified by name at the end of the document.
Law Society of New South Wales, Legal Practice Board of Western Australia, and Victorian Legal Services Board + Commissioner
file name Version121224; the PDF face does not print a publication date · Effective 2024-12-12
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.
Being transparent about their use of AI, and properly recording and disclosing to their clients (and where necessary or appropriate, the court and fellow practitioners) when and how they have used AI in a matter and how the use of AI is reflected in costs, if requested by the client.
Issued 5 June 2026. It supersedes the County Court’s 3 July 2024 litigant guidelines. It does not require a disclosure statement. Court users must be prepared to identify portions produced with AI and explain how the output was verified. The note uses its own paragraph numbering. It is not a copy of the Supreme Court note’s paragraph numbers.
Court users must be prepared to identify the specific portions of Court documents which were produced using AI and be able to explain how the output was verified.
not stated; note refers to 31 March 2025 for submissions
Consultation on a binding AI practice direction for the Supreme Court of WA, focused on generative AI (not e-discovery tools). Separate from the existing Guidelines already in the database.
Cites the AIJA guide AI Decision Making and the Courts (2022, rev. Dec 2023).
Plain-English NCAT fact sheet explaining what Gen AI is and the restrictions on using it in Tribunal proceedings, read with Procedural Direction 7.
Gen AI must not be used to generate or alter all or part of a statement, affidavit, statutory declaration, character reference or other evidentiary material
Gen AI must not be used to generate content for an expert report without the Tribunal's permission (leave)
Anyone using Gen AI for written submissions must verify that all citations, authorities and references are accurate and relevant
In exceptional cases leave can be sought to use Gen AI for an attachment, annexure or exhibit
Warns that information entered into Gen AI may become accessible to other users
OAIC APP Guidelines Chapter 1, updated 30 September 2026. From 10 December 2026, an APP entity must add information to its APP privacy policy if it arranges for a computer program to use personal information to make, or to do a thing substantially and directly related to making, a decision that could reasonably be expected to significantly affect an individual's rights or interests. A law firm that is an APP entity and uses AI in that way needs to update its privacy policy before that date.
"An APP entity must include additional information in its APP Privacy Policy if it arranges for a computer program to use personal information to make, or do a thing that is substantially and directly related to making, a decision, that could reasonably be expected to significantly affect the rights or interests of an individual."
Applies from 10 December 2026 (Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024)
Privacy policy must list the kinds of personal information used, decisions made solely by computer programs, and decisions substantially assisted by them (APP 1.8)
OAIC published an APP 1.7-1.9 fact sheet, a government supplementary fact sheet and a flowchart
listed as advice under development; expected completion to be advised
Applies to the ATO's advice-under-development list, not to a ruling that has been issued. Administration-issues item 4296, Taxpayer use of artificial intelligence in tax affairs, says the ATO is proposing to update MT 2008/1 on reasonable care and MT 2008/2 on a reasonably arguable position where taxpayers use AI, and to prepare a fact sheet called ATO statement on the use of artificial intelligence in tax affairs. Expected completion is to be advised. The administration-issues heading says last updated 5 October 2026. That date is the list heading.
The proposed fact sheet is described as practical information about using accurate facts, checking outputs against legislation, case law and ATO public advice, and reviewing outputs before reliance.
Relevant to A26. Catalogue links: reconcile a tax computation; prepare an information request for a return position; build a tax due-diligence issues list. This list does not name those tasks.
Hub page read 10 October 2026. It does not print a date.
Hub page for the solicitor's guide. Read on 10 October 2026, the page defines artificial intelligence in general terms and says to read the full article on LSJ.com.au. It does not itself set out the conduct duties. The Society's January 2026 guide is a separate PDF.
The hub page points readers to an LSJ article. It does not set the conduct duties.
The January 2026 PDF is the guide that states the duties.
Relevant to A16. Catalogue links: draft a mediation or family-dispute-resolution position paper; draft the expert brief and review a valuation or family-report draft; turn existing parenting orders into a practical arrangements sheet. This direction does not name those tasks.
November 2023 SRA Risk Outlook on how solicitors were using AI, and the risks the SRA highlighted then (accuracy, confidentiality and accountability). The figures below are from that report, not a later survey.
The November 2023 report said three quarters of the largest firms were using AI
The same report said over 60% of large firms and a third of small firms were exploring generative AI
NCAT announcement for Privacy Awareness Week 2026 pointing parties to Procedural Direction 7 and the Gen AI fact sheet, and warning about privacy risks of entering personal or confidential information into Gen AI tools.
Gen AI may help organise information, summarise material or prepare chronologies but creates privacy risks
Gen AI must not be used to generate or alter evidence (statements, affidavits, statutory declarations)
Gen AI must not generate expert-report content unless the Tribunal has given permission
Encourages everyone in NCAT proceedings to review the guidance before using Gen AI
TPB webinar page, issued 25 August 2026, with Q&A on TPB(GS) 55/2026. AI outputs are a starting point, the practitioner remains responsible, and client permission is needed before client information goes into an AI tool that is a third party. This page sits beside the guidance statement already in the catalogue.
"Tax practitioners must obtain permission from their client, before disclosing any information relating to a client's affairs to a third-party. This may include entering client information into AI models and tools."
A third party under the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 "can include AI models and tools depending on how these tools are configured and used"
"AI outputs should be treated as a starting point only"; practitioners must review, test and verify before relying on them
Keep enough records to show AI outputs were reviewed in line with the practitioner's processes
Where AI use is a material change to service delivery or data handling, consider updating engagement letters and telling clients
The guideline PDF is dated 14 May 2026. · Effective 2026-05-14
These are guidelines for judges, associate judges and judicial registrars of the Supreme Court of Victoria, including reserves. They are not a practice note binding the parties. The PDF is dated 14 May 2026. They are informed by eight principles in the Victorian Law Reform Commission report of October 2025. Judicial officers must not use generative artificial intelligence for judicial decision-making. They exercise their own judgment and give reasons. The guidelines do not prevent supportive uses by officers or staff. Permissible supportive uses are organising and locating case materials, summaries and chronologies, an aid to legal research, and proof-reading. Those uses are not a substitute for reading or listening to the evidence and submissions, or for fact-finding. For case-related matters, only Court-approved tools may be used, with confidentiality controls. Officers should direct staff on use and disclosure. The guidelines will be reviewed. This is guidance for judicial officers.
Guidance for judicial officers, not a practice note binding the parties.
Judicial officers must not use generative artificial intelligence for judicial decision-making.
Supportive uses may organise case materials, summarise, aid research and proof-read. They are not a substitute for reading the evidence or for fact-finding.
Case-related use is limited to Court-approved tools.
This is the ACCC's own internal policy on how the agency uses AI. Published in February 2026 and reviewed at least once a year. People at the ACCC remain responsible for oversight and decisions. The stated uses are analytics and workplace productivity, including summaries, transcription and drafts, except documents subject to administrative review. The ACCC does not currently deploy AI in direct public interaction through the Infocentre or ScamWatch. It is not a rule for businesses and it is not advice on the Australian Consumer Law.
It uses the definition of AI in the Policy for the responsible use of AI in government.
The AI accountable official is the General Manager of Data and Intelligence. The Corporate Governance Board has oversight.
Announces publication of GPN-AI on 16 April 2026 following consultation; preceded by the Chief Justice statement of 28 March 2025 and a notice of 29 April 2025.
Caution required for pleadings, submissions, evidence and confidential or protected information.
Explains when disclosure of GenAI use may be required.
Curated AI resources: Law Society generative AI guidance, a checklist from exploration/procurement to use, and court rulings on lawyers' responsibility for AI material.
Guidance on the use of Artificial Intelligence and other technologies by barristersGuidanceRegulatorPrimary sourceConfidence: mediumUnverified dateExact publication date not shown on the news page; guidance PDF at barstandardsboard.org.uk/asset/5E1BAA5C-614C-4105-AFAE9A9CCDF8D97B/.Secondary. Guides barristers. Not a court practice note.
Bar Standards Board
Not stated
BSB guidance explaining how existing BSB Handbook duties apply when barristers use AI, issued after Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey.
Practical framework for safe AI use while meeting professional obligations
Applies existing Handbook rules rather than creating new ones
NCAT Annual Report 2024-2025 (Gen AI resources and Member Guidelines)Annual reportTribunalPrimary sourceConfidence: mediumUnverified dateMember Guidelines document itself not fetched; date_on_page is the reporting period end (30 June 2025).Secondary. NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal
2025-06-30
NCAT's 2024-25 annual report records the introduction of Gen AI resources for Tribunal proceedings and lists, among its published guidelines, NCAT Member Guidelines on use of Generative AI alongside Procedural Direction 7.
Reports introduction of new Gen AI resources: a procedural direction, member guidelines and a fact sheet
Lists "NCAT Member Guidelines - Use of Generative AI in Tribunal proceedings" among Tribunal guidelines
Historical background only. This 24 March 2026 media release opened consultation on Exposure Draft information sheet D62/2026 until 21 April 2026. The draft was later finalised as TPB(GS) 55/2026, which is the statement to use.
Exposure draft focuses on competence, confidentiality, supervision and control, and professional judgment
"tax practitioners remain responsible for the services they provide, whether AI tools are used or not"
Announced on the Court's What's New page on 20 November 2025. Inserted as Practice Direction 9.21 of the Consolidated Practice Directions on 10 December 2025. The standalone PDF has no date on its face. · Effective 2025-12-10
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.
Practice Direction 9.21. The text is guidelines, not a ban, for civil and criminal proceedings.
Relied-on content must be verified by a human who takes legal responsibility.
Affidavits and witness statements must be in the witness's own words. Artificial intelligence must not substitute the witness's voice.
Disclose the use when the Court directs or where it is otherwise necessary or appropriate.
Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority
2026-03-05
Applies to registered migration agents. The occupational competency standards page has a section, RMAs and the use of AI tools. It says RMAs may use AI while giving immigration assistance, and remain responsible for inadequate or inaccurate information. The Code of Conduct applies even though AI is not specifically mentioned. Sharing a client's personal details through an AI tool may breach the duty of confidentiality in section 35 of the Code. This page does not state the section 280 offence or a written-consent rule. Last updated 5 March 2026.
Relevant to A30. Catalogue links: draft a client declaration or interview-question list; build a visa-pathway longlist; prepare a response-to-information-request checklist. This page does not name those tasks.
NSW PDF of the 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. The PDF prints no date on its face. The file name is Version121224. The Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner page of the same statement is dated 6 December 2024. The duties are recorded on that Victorian page and on the separate catalogue row for this file name.
The PDF prints no date on its face. The file name is Version121224.
The Victorian page of the same statement is dated 6 December 2024.
Tells self-represented litigants not to use generative AI programs (e.g. ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, Gemini) to get legal help about whether they have a case they can win, as they are not reliable for that.
Self-represented-litigant facing; distinct from GPN-AI.
The use of generative AI: guidelines for judicial officersJudicial guidelineSecondary sourceUnverified datePDF failed to fetch twice; content from secondary source.Secondary. Written for judicial officers, not for a practitioner filing a document.
Guidelines for Queensland judicial officers; stress that advocates are personally responsible for accuracy and that judicial officers maintain security.
CDPP AI Transparency StatementTransparency statementProsecutorCriminalPrimary sourceConfidence: highProfessional guidance. Scope not stated in the stored source.
Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
2026-02-25
CDPP statement under the DTA Policy for the responsible use of AI in government. It says the CDPP currently does not use AI in public services or advice, or internally, and names the CIO as the accountable official.
"Currently the CDPP does not use AI in any services or advice we provide publicly or currently use AI internally."
Follows the Digital Transformation Agency Policy for the responsible use of AI in government; the CIO is the accountable official, supported by an AI reference group
Any data used in AI systems will be handled under the Privacy Act 1988 and the Protective Security Policy Framework
Statement to be updated as its approach changes, and at least every 12 months
29 April 2025, Chief Justice D S Mortimer. · Effective 2025-04-29
Notice to the Profession dated 29 April 2025 from Chief Justice D S Mortimer on artificial intelligence use in the Federal Court of Australia. It is a notice, not a practice note. It refers to the Chief Justice's media statement of 28 March 2025. It says judges were considering guidelines or a practice note, that the Court would consult, and that it would consider what other courts had done. Until then, practitioners and self-represented litigants were to use generative artificial intelligence consistently with their existing obligations, and to disclose that use if a judge or registrar required it. Comments were invited to AI_Consultation@fedcourt.gov.au by 13 June 2025. The later notice of 16 April 2026 and General Practice Note GPN-AI are different instruments. This notice is guidance.
Guidance notice of 29 April 2025, not a practice note.
Until a later instrument, use generative artificial intelligence consistently with existing obligations.
Disclose that use if a judge or registrar requires it.
Consultation comments were invited by 13 June 2025.
Digital AssistantGovernment guidanceGovernmentPrimary sourceConfidence: highProfessional guidance. About A30.
Department of Home Affairs
publication date not stated on the page
Applies to people using the Department of Home Affairs website chatbot. The Digital Assistant uses artificial intelligence-based software to answer visa, citizenship, border and trade questions from the words in the question. It cannot give information on a person's visa or citizenship application. The page tells people to use ImmiAccount or VEVO for status, and to remove personal information such as reference numbers, identity information and contact details. It is not a conduct rule for registered migration agents. The page does not state a publication date.
Relevant to A30. Catalogue link for immigration work such as a visa-pathway longlist. This page does not name those tasks and it does not set a duty for registered migration agents.
NSW Bar Association publishes “Artificial intelligence, chatbots and the Bar - Barnews”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
updated guidance (builds on May 2023 generative AI guidance)
All 13 IPPs apply to developing and using AI tools in NZ, including tools supplied by overseas organisations; OPC recommends a privacy impact assessment.
VCAT expert-evidence practice note (effective 1 February 2026) that requires experts to be made aware of PNVCAT11 on Gen AI and to include a Gen AI disclosure in expert reports where relevant.
Party retaining an expert must make the expert aware of PNVCAT 11 (Use of Generative AI) where relevant
Expert reports must include, where relevant, a disclosure about Gen AI use as required by PNVCAT 11
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)
2024-06-30
Not guidance for practitioners. The NSW ODPP 2023-24 annual report records that Deloitte was engaged to co-design an Artificial Intelligence Strategy, and that AI search across image and video files in briefs of evidence was evaluated. The date is the end of the reporting period, not an effective date.
Deloitte Consulting engaged to co-design the ODPP's Artificial Intelligence Strategy ($136,364)
Possible use of AI to search image and video files within the digital brief evaluated
Last updated on the page on 8 October 2026. First published in February 2025. · Effective 2026-10-08
The Fair Work Commission's artificial intelligence transparency statement. It describes the Commission's own use. It is not a direction to parties. The page says the Commission will not use generative artificial intelligence to make decisions under the Fair Work Act 2009 or the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009, and that those decisions can only be made by an appropriate human office holder. Stated uses fall into workplace productivity and analytics for insights, across corporate and service-delivery work, including summarising, transcription, redaction and an initial triage of enterprise agreements for staff. Non-generative artificial intelligence is a component of the document search tool. The Commission says it does not currently use generative artificial intelligence in a way the public could interact with, or be significantly affected by, without a human intermediary. An Artificial Intelligence Assessment Committee oversees use. The Executive Director, Legal Performance and Engagement is the accountable official. The statement was first published in February 2025 and was last updated on 8 October 2026. The separate guidance note for parties who use generative artificial intelligence in a case is a different instrument.
The Commission's own-use statement, not a direction to parties.
The Commission will not use generative artificial intelligence to make decisions under the Fair Work Act 2009 or the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009.
The public does not currently interact with the Commission's generative artificial intelligence without a human intermediary.
Last updated on the page on 8 October 2026. First published in February 2025.
NSW Bar Association publishes “Notice to the profession - 29 April 2025”. On 28 March 2025 the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia issued a media statement relating to the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
On 28 March 2025 the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia issued a media statement relating to the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence.
The year 2025 is likely to see a number of developments and issues about the use of Artificial Intelligence, especially Generative Artificial Intelligence, by courts and in court proceedings.
Guidance on AI and data protectionPrivacy guidancePrivacy regulatorPrimary sourceConfidence: mediumUnverified dateThe ICO page says this guidance is under review because of the Data (Use and Access) Act and may change.Secondary. Scope not stated in the stored source.
Information Commissioner's Office
2023-03-15 (updated)
ICO guidance on applying UK GDPR to AI systems, including fairness, lawfulness, transparency and accountability. The guidance page says it was updated on 15 March 2023 and is under review because of the Data (Use and Access) Act, so it may change.
Updated 15 March 2023 to clarify fairness requirements
The ICO says the guidance is under review after the Data (Use and Access) Act and may change
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.
Litigants and representatives should exercise caution using AI tools to help prepare documents
AI is not a substitute for qualified legal advice; output may be inaccurate, incomplete or out of date
Read QCAT Practice Direction No 10 of 2025 (accuracy of references) before relying on AI output
Infographic available in Simple Chinese, Traditional Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean and Spanish
Client-facing fact sheet for people preparing a submission to the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, not a conduct rule for lawyers. It says the experiences must be the person's own, output must be checked, and confidential or sensitive information should not go into open AI tools. One answer says data shared with any AI generally cannot be deleted except where terms of service say otherwise. That line is broader than many enterprise terms. Use the page for the client caution only.
AI may help structure material, refine language or summarise key points, but the experiences in a submission must be your own
"You should not put confidential or sensitive information into open AI tools."
Proof-read all AI-generated material; it can include incorrect, false and irrelevant material
Recommends approved private AI tools where sensitive information is involved
NSW Bar Association publishes “Practice Note - Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI) (effective 12 February 2025)”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Copyright Agency publishes positions and surveys on generative AI and copyright (e.g. market-impact survey July 2026; schools guidance on generative AI tools).
Misuse of AI – Warning noticeRegulator warningPrimary sourceProfessional guidance. Scope not stated in the stored source.
Solicitors Regulation Authority
not stated on page read
Warns that AI has no separate legal personality; solicitors remain responsible for competence, supervision and properly arguable representations; supervisors can be liable for false citations put before the court.
Code of Conduct for Solicitors paras 2.4, 3.2, 3.5; Code for Firms paras 2.1, 4.3, 4.4.
Cites Ayinde v Haringey [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin), UK v SSHD [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC), BCP v A Mother [2026] EWFC 71 (B), Cork v Smith [2026] EWHC 1199 (Ch).
AI use in Legal Services – CRL guidanceGuidanceRegulatorPrimary sourceConfidence: mediumUnverified dateDate taken from URL path.Secondary. Scope not stated in the stored source.
CILEx Regulation
2026-10-01
CILEx Regulation guidance on how the CILEX Code of Conduct applies to AI use: competence, accuracy, confidentiality, transparency and human oversight.
Responsibility cannot be delegated; AI output must be reviewed, verified and approved by a competent person
VLRC final report, tabled on 3 February 2026, with 30 recommendations. It proposes a principles-based approach, eight principles for safe AI use, and guidelines for court users, judicial officers and staff, plus governance and training. The recommendations are not binding until a court or tribunal adopts them. Earlier batches hold the consultation paper, not this report.
30 recommendations to guide safe use of AI in Victorian courts and tribunals
Recommends a principles-based regulatory approach and eight principles to maintain public trust
Guidelines recommended for court users (including lawyers), judicial officers and court/tribunal staff, with an example of updated Supreme Court guidelines
Calls for formal, ongoing training and education on AI guidelines
commences (issued 7 Mar 2025) · Effective 2025-04-07
Based on SC Gen 23 with modifications; applies to all NCAT proceedings from 7 April 2025.
Lists material that must not be entered into any Gen AI program, incl. material under non-publication orders, statutory publication restrictions and summonsed material, unless a controlled confidential environment applies (para 9).
Formal Opinion 2024-5: Generative AI in the Practice of LawEthics opinionSecondary sourceUnverified dateThe linked page is Formal Opinion 2026-2, not 2024-5. Confirm 2024-5 on nycbar.org before reliance.Secondary. Guides barristers. Not a court practice note.
New York City Bar Association
2024 (per opinion number)
No confidential information into open AI systems without consent; verify outputs; do not bill hourly for time saved.
LSB update on its approach to regulating AI useRegulator statementRegulatorPrimary sourceConfidence: lowUnverified datePublication date not captured.Secondary. Scope not stated in the stored source.
Legal Services Board
Not stated
Oversight regulator sets out a pro-innovation approach to AI in legal services and its plans for the coming year.
Explains scope of LSB remit over AI and technology
The ART President's Gen AI practice direction (dated 20 August 2026), adapted from the Federal Court GPN-AI, setting expectations for everyone in ART proceedings and when Gen AI use must be verified, explained or disclosed.
Adapted from the Federal Court of Australia GPN-AI (16 April 2026) with the Chief Justice's permission
Applies to documents, information, submissions and evidence given to the Tribunal; not to internal Tribunal administration
Sets out when a person must verify, explain or disclose use of Generative AI
Non-compliance may lead to directions to correct or withdraw material, less or no weight, or the Tribunal declining to rely on material
Possible referral of legal or professional representatives to a regulator, usually after the substantive decision
Read with the Common Procedures and Expert Evidence Practice Directions 2026; AI agents may not record case events without permission
FWC web page that puts the GenAI guidance note into user-facing language. From 20 October 2026, a person who uses GenAI to prepare a document must disclose that use, check the document, and say so in the document. Lawyers and other professional representatives must also hyperlink any case law cited. The guidance-note PDF is already in the catalogue. This row is the companion page. The page itself has no revision date.
"These requirements apply to all Commission matters from 20 October 2026."
If GenAI is used to create, write, edit or prepare a document you must tell the Commission and explain how it was used, check it yourself, and state that you completed the checks
Witness statements and declarations must be based on the witness's own knowledge and reflect their own words
"Legal practitioners and other professional representatives also must include hyperlinks to any case law referred to in documents prepared using GenAI."
Non-compliance may mean less weight, costs orders or dismissal; some forms will include a GenAI question
NSW Information and Privacy Commission publishes “Guide to undertaking Privacy Impact Assessments on AI systems and projects”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Workers compensation and motor accidents disputes: Gen AI must not generate witness/claimant evidence (r 33A PIC Rules); statements must disclose non-use; submissions using Gen AI must be verified, and not by a Gen AI tool.
Para 12: no Gen AI for content of written statements.
Para 15: disclosure in all written statements.
Para 19: verification must not use Gen AI.
Paras 22-23: expert reports must disclose Gen AI use (r 33B).
Spelling/grammar/formatting tools are excluded (para 7).
Guide to Generative AIGuidanceLaw societyPrimary sourceConfidence: mediumProfessional guidance. Scope not stated in the stored source.
Law Society of Scotland
Not stated
Guide for Scottish solicitors on safely incorporating generative AI, covering risk assessment, data protection, information security and professional duties.
Recommends a data protection and information security risk assessment before using any generative AI system
ART Expert Evidence Practice Direction (dated 27 January 2026, commencing 2 March 2026) requiring experts to state whether a report contains Gen AI content and, if so, identify it and certify they checked it.
Experts must state whether the report includes content generated using Generative AI
If it does, they must identify the AI content and the application(s) used
Experts must certify they personally checked all AI content, including cited research, for accuracy and reliability
Cover sheet includes a Gen AI certification checkbox
ANAO performance audit, published 29 June 2026, of IP Australia's use of AI in the patent rights process. The ANAO found that use largely effective, and made two recommendations on cyber-security risk and strategic oversight, which IP Australia agreed. This is an audit of the agency, not a conduct rule for IP practitioners.
Published 29 June 2026 as Auditor-General Report No. 43 of 2025-26
IP Australia's use of AI in the patent rights process was largely effective
Two recommendations: cyber-security risk, and strategic oversight of AI implementation. IP Australia agreed
IP Australia deployed its first AI tool into patent examination in 2018
NSW Information and Privacy Commission publishes “A guide to undertaking Privacy Impact Assessments on AI systems and projects, August 2024 consultation draft”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Requires the individual responsible practitioner to be named for submissions and to take responsibility for the accuracy of references; self-represented parties must also try to ensure accuracy.
Firm name alone is insufficient; individual solicitor or barrister must be named (para 6).
Ethics Opinion 24-1 (generative AI)Ethics opinionPrimary sourceUnverified dateChecked 10 October 2026: a source row already exists in the United States jurisdiction overview and four area-note source rows. This rule cites that source. The research file linked https://clearbrief.com/legal-ai-resources/florida, which is a secondary page and is not used as the source.Secondary. Scope not stated in the stored source.
The Florida Bar
approved by Board of Governors · Effective 2024-01-19
Treats AI like a non-lawyer assistant (Rule 4-5.3); fees must be reasonable (Rule 4-1.5); chatbots must identify as non-human.
ART Common Procedures Practice Direction (dated 27 January 2026) that strictly prohibits cameras and audio/video recording or transmission devices, including AI agents, in Tribunal case events without permission.
Para 5.16: cameras and recording/transmission devices "including an Artificial Intelligence (AI) agent" are strictly prohibited in case events without express permission of the Presiding Member or Registrar
Exploratory scenario pieces by IP Australia's ventures team, published 10 July 2023, on how generative AI may affect patents, trade marks, designs and plant breeder's rights. Not a binding practice rule. The patent manual's AI-inventor section is a separate row.
Scenario pieces on whether traditional understandings of IP hold up with generative AI
Covers design rights, patents, plant breeders' rights and trade marks
NSW Information and Privacy Commission publishes “Media Release - Information and Privacy Commission NSW”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
IPC Generative AI Policyinfo_commissioner_policyPrimary sourceProfessional guidance. Written for government. Not stated as a rule for private practice.
Information and Privacy Commission NSW
PDF month · Effective 2025-11
IPC NSW internal policy on prohibited and pre-authorised uses of open-access generative AI; separate Guide on privacy risks of generative AI tools and May 2026 fact sheet "Engaging with AI".
Opinion 705 (generative AI)Ethics opinionPrimary sourceUnverified dateChecked 10 October 2026: a source row already exists in a United States area-note source row. This rule cites that source. The research file linked https://www.texasbarpractice.com/ethics-professional-responsibility/, which is a secondary page and is not used as the source.Secondary. Scope not stated in the stored source.
State Bar of Texas Professional Ethics Committee
issued · Effective 2025-02
Competence (Rule 1.01), confidentiality, supervision and independent verification of AI output.
Law Institute of Victoria publishes “Artificial Intelligence Hub - Law Institute of Victoria”. Share your feedback to help us enhance our support on AI topics. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Share your feedback to help us enhance our support on AI topics.
No new obligations; highlights RPCs: lawyers responsible for submissions, must not submit false content, must secure AI systems.
NJ Courts AI page: https://btlaw.com/en/insights/alerts/2024/new-jersey-judiciary-releases-preliminary-guidelines-for-unavoidable-use-of-ai-by-attorneys
Lady Chief Justice notes AI could help case management and discovery while acknowledging integrity, regulatory and transparency concerns; no formal practice direction.
No NI court practice direction on AI located as of 10 Oct 2026
ART AI transparency statementTransparency statementTribunalPrimary sourceConfidence: mediumUnverified dateNo publication date in body; table shows target dates of 1 December 2026 for in-development items.Secondary. Administrative Review Tribunal.Administrative & Public Law
Administrative Review Tribunal
Not stated
The ART's statement on its own use of AI under the Commonwealth policy for responsible use of AI in government.
The Tribunal does not, and has no intention to, use AI for its review decision-making function
AI is not used to make operational decisions
Any AI use in service delivery, corporate, policy, legal or fraud domains will be subject to human oversight
Staff must complete mandatory AI training; an internal AI use-case register is in development
Approved by the CEO of the Law Institute of Victoria on 13 August 2025, after consultation with the VLSB+C and the LPLC. The guideline says these are guidelines only and do not have the force of law. They apply to practitioners and support staff in a law practice, and to other organisations that deliver legal services. Practitioners who use AI should: not enter confidential or legally privileged information into an open-source or commercial AI system without client consent; check all outputs for accuracy and suitability; check that cases exist and are relevant; tell the client before AI is used; be able to tell the opponent and the court, if asked, that AI was used; read the privacy policy and terms before first use and review them regularly; charge fairly; and retain what is needed for conflict checks after the retainer ends. The practitioner remains accountable for documents tendered and cannot delegate that to an AI system, staff or the client. The guideline says practitioners should be cautious until they have received appropriate training. Not every use must be disclosed if the text has been thoroughly checked, but the practitioner must know when a document was drafted with AI and be able to tell the court its origin. Tell the client before AI is used in the matter. Do not input confidential or privileged information except into a closed system whose claim to be closed has been carefully examined, and only after weighing the risk. Seek the client's consent before using confidential information with an AI model. An information barrier can be undermined if a closed system retains one client's information and later uses it for another. Principals are responsible for reasonable supervision, including of support staff who can access AI (ASCR r 37.1). A time-based bill cannot charge two hours for a document generated with AI in 20 minutes, including time spent instructing the AI and reviewing the result. Costs related to AI use are to appear in the costs disclosure and estimate.
Approved 13 August 2025. Guidelines only; they do not have the force of law.
Do not enter confidential or privileged information into an open or commercial AI system without client consent.
Tell the client before AI is used. Be able to tell the opponent and the court, if asked, whether AI was used.
Principals must supervise staff who can access AI.
Do not bill manual time for work generative AI shortened. The guideline's example is two hours billed for 20 minutes of work.
Same Law Institute of Victoria guidance note as the catalogue row for this PDF without the tracking parameter. Approved by the CEO on 13 August 2025, after consultation with the VLSB+C and the LPLC. The guideline says these are guidelines only and do not have the force of law. The 6 December 2024 date in the document is a footnote citation of the Uniform Law statement, not the approval date of this note.
Use of AI must not indirectly mislead the Court or others about the nature of work or content; AI-assisted legal tasks remain subject to practitioners' duties including candour.
Paras 3-4.
The County Court of Victoria publishes equivalent litigant guidelines (per Law Society NSW protocol table, 14 May 2026).
Registrar’s Circular No. 1 of 2024, dated 23 September 2024. The circular says the Guide applies to all Supreme Court matters from 1 October 2024. The Guide itself also covers the State Courts and the Family Justice Courts.
Applies to all matters in the Supreme Court with effect from 1 October 2024
The Guide’s own text also applies to the State Courts and the Family Justice Courts
Law Institute of Victoria publishes “Artificial Intelligence Hub - Law Institute of Victoria”. Share your feedback to help us enhance our support on AI topics. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Share your feedback to help us enhance our support on AI topics.
Existing professional and judicial conduct rules apply fully; attorneys, judges and self-represented litigants are accountable for their work product; no disclosure mandate.
ARDC AI resources: https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/e43964ab-8874-4b7a-be4e-63af019cb6f7/Illinois%20Supreme%20Court%20AI%20Policy.pdf
The QIRC library and news pages point users to the Queensland courts' Guidelines for Responsible Use of Generative AI by Non-Lawyers (13 May 2024). This row records that link, not a separate QIRC instrument.
QIRC links the Queensland Courts non-lawyer Gen AI guidelines (13 May 2024) from its library
The QIRC News and Notices page also flags the guidelines
Law Institute of Victoria publishes “Artificial Intelligence and Lawyers' Ethical Duties”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Victorian Legal Services Board + Commissioner (with Uniform Law regulators)
06 December 2024 · Effective 2024-12-06
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.
Confidentiality (ASCR r 9.1; BR r 114): do not enter confidential client information into public chatbots.
Independent advice (ASCR r 4.1.4).
Competence and honesty (ASCR rr 4.1.2-4.1.3).
Fair costs (Uniform Law ss 172-173; ASCR r 12.2): bill actual work done.
Limit AI to lower-risk, easier-to-verify tasks; be transparent with clients.
The President's report in the 2025-26 annual report says use of generative AI tools is starting to bring its own challenges, and records adoption of Supreme Court Practice Direction 5 (24 September 2025) as QIRC Practice Direction 1 of 2026 - Accuracy of References in Submissions.
Generative AI tools "are starting to bring their own challenges"
Supreme Court of Queensland PD 5 (24 Sep 2025) adopted as Practice Direction 1 of 2026 - Accuracy of References in Submissions
Stresses the Court and Commission must be able to rely on the integrity of legal practitioners, union advocates and self-represented litigants
Artificial intelligence & large language models - Victorian BarProfessional guidanceSecondary sourceUnverified dateThe 10 October 2026 check marked this find as low confidence. Read the page before treating it as the body’s position.Secondary. Scope not stated in the stored source.
Victorian Bar
Not stated
Victorian Bar publishes “Artificial intelligence & large language models - Victorian Bar”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
AI hallucination cases: trend datatrackerSecondary sourceUnverified dateTrend numbers come from a vendor blog citing the database.Secondary. Scope not stated in the stored source.
Damien Charlotin (database); HAQQ (analysis)
data point as at · Effective 2026-09-21
2,046 court cases worldwide involving AI-fabricated content by 21 Sep 2026 (about 200 in mid-2025, 719 by Jan 2026, 1,598 by 9 Jun 2026).
Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission
2026-05-06
WAIRC news item. The practice notes were published in the Western Australian Industrial Gazette on 22 April 2026 and take effect on 6 May 2026. Practice Note 1 of 2026 concerns use of artificial intelligence. The practice note PDF is already in the catalogue.
Announces Practice Note 1 of 2026 - Use of artificial intelligence
Published in (2026) 106 WAIG 690-693 on 22 April 2026
Each practice note takes effect on 6 May 2026, 14 days after gazette publication
Practice Note 2 of 2026 (delivery of reserved decisions) replaces Practice Note 1 of 2021
Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner publishes “New research examines AI use in the Victorian legal profession | VLSB+C”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
White paper on applying the rules of professional conduct to GenAI, with three companion practical tools; LSO was the fifth Canadian society to issue guidance (after Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, BC).
Industrial Court/QIRC practice direction on AI use in litigation, warning of plausible but inaccurate outputs; QIRC also republishes Qld Courts non-lawyer Gen AI guidelines.
Client-facing warning that AI chats may be accessed (e.g. via subpoena) and that courts may require disclosure of AI use; lists risks by practice area.
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.
Uploading documents received in litigation into open Gen AI may breach the Harman obligation and be contempt of court
Do not upload suppressed, confidential, privileged or settlement documents unless satisfied the system is closed
Explains "open" vs "closed" AI systems (e.g. free ChatGPT is open)
Take reasonable steps to verify that legal sources or references from Gen AI are relevant and accurate
Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner publishes “Generative AI Use in the Legal Profession – Research Brief”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Notice of 7 May 2024. A document prepared for litigation must say in its first paragraph that AI was used when AI created or generated content in the document. A declaration is not required when AI only suggests changes to text a person wrote.
The declaration is required when AI generated the content, including named paragraphs
It is not required when AI only suggests, recommends or critiques human-written text
SAET notice by Justice Steven Dolphin, dated 17 October 2025, reminding practitioners of duties not to mislead and warning of Gen AI "hallucinations", following a referral to the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner over fictitious citations.
Legal practitioners must not knowingly or recklessly mislead a court or tribunal and must correct misleading statements
Citing a fictitious authority is treated seriously and was referred to the LPCC
Reminds litigants of the dangers of Gen AI hallucinations, whether open-source or closed models
Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner publishes “Tapping the potential of AI in legal practice: daiquiris, anyone? | VLSB+C”. New research finds that while generative AI is gaining ground in Victorian legal practice, its benefits remain narrowly conceived and unevenly distributed. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
New research finds that while generative AI is gaining ground in Victorian legal practice, its benefits remain narrowly conceived and unevenly distributed.
Privacy obligations apply to personal information input into a commercially available AI product, and to output that contains personal information. Published 21 October 2024 and updated 17 January 2025. It is for an organisation deploying AI that was built with, collects, stores, uses or discloses personal information, including internal use and free public chatbots. It is not a complete list of every privacy obligation.
Best practice: do not enter personal, especially sensitive, information into public generative AI tools.
A deployer includes internal use and a product or service supplied to others. The page also covers free public chatbots.
The page links three companion PDFs (top five takeaways, a selection checklist and a use checklist). They summarise this guidance.
Relevant to A25, A45, A51. Catalogue links: build a privacy-law gap table; draft a privacy-impact or algorithmic-impact assessment; build an upload checklist; decide whether client material can go into a tool. This guidance does not name those tasks.
Victoria Legal Aid publishes “Upgrading our online chat to provide a better service to help seekers”. The questions our digital assistant asks you are the same for every chat. The tool does not use artificial intelligence, think, or learn on its own. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
The questions our digital assistant asks you are the same for every chat. The tool does not use artificial intelligence, think, or learn on its own.
For developers of generative AI who are APP entities and who are training or fine-tuning models, including a person who designs, builds, trains, adapts or combines models. Published 21 October 2024 and updated 23 October 2024. Publicly available data is not automatically usable to train or fine-tune a model. Developers must take reasonable steps on accuracy.
Publicly available data is not automatically usable for training.
Sensitive information generally needs consent.
Secondary use of held data for training needs careful APP 6 analysis; seek consent/opt-out if unclear.
APP 10 accuracy duties.
Relevant to A45, A25. Catalogue links: draft a privacy-impact or algorithmic-impact assessment; build a privacy-law gap table. This guidance does not name those tasks.
ABA news release on Formal Opinion 512Press releaseSecondary sourceUnverified dateOpinion 512 itself is already in the database; add only as a supporting source.Secondary. Guides barristers. Not a court practice note.
Review of AI use by 23 AFS and credit licensees, released 29 October 2024. It warns that governance is lagging AI adoption. It reports what ASIC found. It does not add a licence condition.
Media release 24-238MR.
Relevant to advising AFSL/ACL holders.
The review covered 624 use cases as at December 2023, and meetings with 12 of the licensees in June 2024. Only 12 of the 23 licensees had AI policy documents that referenced fairness or related concepts such as discrimination or bias.
The report says the framework is technology neutral. Licensees need to consider existing general licensee obligations, directors' duties and consumer protection provisions, including where a third party develops the model.
Relevant to A28, A3. Catalogue links: build an AI-use gap table against the licence's general obligations; draft a financial-services or credit-licence application narrative. This report does not name those tasks.
PIC newsletter warning that AI tools, including virtual assistants or background bots that record or analyse conversations, are prohibited in Commission proceedings and will be removed if detected.
Use of AI tools in Commission proceedings is prohibited, including virtual AI assistants and background bots
AI tools have been observed joining virtual hearings and medical assessments; they will be removed
Disable all AI tools before joining Commission proceedings; if unsure a tool is permitted, assume it is not
Rule 113 of the PIC Rules 2021 prohibits recording medical assessments without full consent
Victoria Legal Aid publishes “Making community legal information | Victoria Legal Aid”. Artificial intelligence (AI) can support community legal information work. We find it useful for some tasks, while recognising that it also has risks and limitations. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Artificial intelligence (AI) can support community legal information work. We find it useful for some tasks, while recognising that it also has risks and limitations.
PIC procedural direction for self-represented litigants (commencing 14 July 2026) with a section on using Gen AI, social media and online resources.
Self-represented parties must follow PIC Rules 33A and 33B and Procedural Direction PIC13 on Gen AI
Gen AI must not be used to draft, embellish or produce witness statements; breach may mean the statement is not considered
Do not rely on AI programs (such as Chat GPT, Claude or Google Gemini) for advice on whether you have a case; answers may reflect American or other non-NSW law
If using AI for submissions, check that every legislative reference and case exists and is relevant
Points to free databases such as AustLII and NSW Caselaw
Victoria Legal Aid publishes “Protecting privacy and data – obligations for panel practitioners”. The way legal services are delivered is rapidly evolving, shaped by digital communication, remote work, and the growing use of artificial intelligence. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
The way legal services are delivered is rapidly evolving, shaped by digital communication, remote work, and the growing use of artificial intelligence.
EU AI Act Article 5 – Prohibited AI practicesLegislationSecondary sourceUnverified dateCheck the 2 Dec 2026 provisions (possible amendment).Secondary. Scope not stated in the stored source.
European Union
in force per Article 113(a); the page also shows some provisions dated 2 December 2026 · Effective 2025-02-02
Lists prohibited AI practices; relevant to advising clients and to firm tools.
Guidance for registered tax and BAS agents on using AI while providing tax agent services, under the Code (section 30-10 of the Tax Agent Services Act 2009) and the 2024 Code Determination. Issued and last modified 22 July 2026. It does not create additional rights or legal obligations beyond the TASA.
Does not create new obligations beyond TASA.
The statement says tax practitioners remain responsible for the services they provide and must assess AI outputs with professional judgement before reliance.
Relevant to A26. Catalogue links: reconcile a tax computation; prepare an information request for a return position; build a tax due-diligence issues list. This statement does not name those tasks.
From 1 September 2026, a factum must include a signed statement that the signer is satisfied every authority cited is authentic and every quotation accurately reproduces the authority. O. Reg. 275/26 replaced the authenticity-only text introduced by O. Reg. 384/24. The subrule does not require a statement that AI was or was not used.
The signer certifies authenticity of every authority and accuracy of every quotation
A self-represented party signs the statement. Authorities on a government site, CanLII, a court site or a commercial publisher of decisions are presumed authentic
Risk Outlook 2026 - Using artificial intelligenceRegulator reportRegulatorPrimary sourceConfidence: highUnverified date"Last updated on 29 April 2026" shown on page.Secondary. Scope not stated in the stored source.
Victorian Legal Services Board + Commissioner
2026-04-29
VLSB+C's 2026 risk outlook names AI as a professional competency risk, encouraging responsible use while warning that unverified GenAI output breaches professional obligations and may lead to disciplinary action.
Almost 40% of Victorian lawyers use GenAI tools, per the Legal Services Research Centre
Lawyers must personally verify GenAI outputs, including reading cited sources, and not generate outputs they cannot verify
Principals should set clear GenAI policies, confirm tool security and confidentiality, and train staff
Failures to verify AI material are taken extremely seriously and may lead to regulatory or disciplinary action
Lawyers should check whether clients used GenAI to produce documents for their matter
Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner publishes “Artificial Intelligence and Privacy – Issues and Challenges”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Guidance on the use of AI in delivering immigration assistanceRegulator guidanceSecondary sourceUnverified dateThis note relies on a secondary report. The primary OMARA page was not retrieved; confirm the primary text before reliance.Secondary. About immigration assistance.
Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority
SAET adopts the SA courts' Gen AI guidelines (in force 1 Jan 2026 across Supreme, District, Magistrates, Youth, ERD Courts) and issues an information sheet for self-represented litigants; Oct 2025 referral to LPCC for fake-case citation.
Risk Outlook 2024 - Artificial intelligence: improper useRegulator reportRegulatorPrimary sourceConfidence: mediumUnverified datePage shows dates 6 June 2024 and a "last updated" of 27 March 2026; publication date not confirmed.Secondary. Guides lawyers. Not a court practice note.
Victorian Legal Services Board + Commissioner
Not stated
VLSB+C's 2024 risk outlook identifying improper use of AI as a key risk and listing the regulator's expectations of lawyers who use AI.
Lawyers are responsible for the accuracy of output, not the AI program
Never use AI to create outputs you cannot personally validate (e.g. translations into a language you do not speak)
Never enter confidential, sensitive or privileged client data into generic LLMs
Supervise junior lawyers and support staff using AI and verify their output
Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner publishes “Artificial Intelligence – Understanding Privacy Obligations”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Generative AI and LawyersRegulator statementRegulatorPrimary sourceConfidence: highUnverified dateHistoric (2023) statement; later superseded in practice by the Dec 2024 joint Statement on AI in legal practice.Secondary. Guides lawyers. Not a court practice note.
Victorian Legal Services Board + Commissioner
2023-09-28
Early VLSB+C commentary (28 September 2023) on ChatGPT and other generative AI platforms: how they work, accuracy limits and the ethical rules that apply when lawyers use them.
ChatGPT is a generalist tool, not trained to give accurate legal answers, and is optimised for fluency over accuracy
Lawyers remain responsible for the accuracy of any text they generate
Recommends lawyers gain a basic understanding of generative AI, its uses and risks
Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner publishes “Public consultation on Artificial Intelligence privacy guidance”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Report of the UK-Australia Legal Services Regulatory Dialogue, published by the Legal Services Council, with a section on legal technology and AI comparing regulator, professional-body and court responses in both countries.
Notes rapidly rising use of generative AI by lawyers in the UK and Australia
Summarises the NSW Law Society, LPBWA and VLSB+C joint statement that AI cannot substitute for legal knowledge and must be verified
Notes QLS-led multi-state guidance on AI selection and use
Observes common themes in Australian court practice notes (confidentiality, limits on AI in affidavits, citation verification, expert reports)
Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner publishes “Use of enterprise Generative AI tools in the Victorian public sector”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Examiner guidance. An inventor must be a natural person. A corporation or AI cannot be an inventor. The manual records Stephen L Thaler [2021] APO 5, overturned by a single judge in Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879, then restored by the Full Court in Commissioner of Patents v Thaler [2022] FCAFC 62. Special leave was refused in Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2022] HCATrans 199 on 11 November 2022. Naming a non-human inventor fails the formalities.
The manual says the Full Court finding is the current state of the law on AI inventorship.
Relevant to A23. Catalogue links: prepare a citation list of material prior art; build a prior-art hit table; prepare an issues list on AI-generated works and training data; draft an IP licence or assignment. This manual section does not name those tasks.
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.
Practitioners remain responsible for legal services whether or not GenAI is used; all professional duties still apply
Risks include unreliable or wrong outputs (hallucinations), bias, confidentiality and privacy
Comply with court and regulator guidelines and professional rules; review all GenAI outputs for accuracy
Establish, maintain and regularly review documented workplace policies and internal controls
Queensland Law Society publishes “AI selection and use checklist - Queensland Law Society”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority
2026-03-05
OMARA guidance on how AI interacts with lawful immigration assistance, RMA responsibilities and consumer consent.
Only RMAs, Australian legal practitioners and limited exempt persons may give immigration assistance; there is no exemption for AI-generated information
A person who provides immigration assistance through AI may commit an offence under s 280 of the Migration Act
RMAs who use AI remain responsible for the accuracy of the assistance; Code of Conduct standards apply
RMAs need clients' written consent before entering personal details into an AI platform
Consumers can complain to the OMARA about an RMA's use of AI
The page was last updated on 5 March 2026.
Relevant to A30. Catalogue links: draft a client declaration or interview-question list; build a visa-pathway longlist; prepare a response-to-information-request checklist. This guidance does not name those tasks.
Queensland Law Society publishes “The use of artificial intelligence and other technology in court proceedings”. QLS submission to the Chief Justice on the use of artificial intelligence and other technology in court proceedings. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
QLS submission to the Chief Justice on the use of artificial intelligence and other technology in court proceedings.
Member Forum Q&A - Artificial IntelligenceStatementExternal dispute schemePrimary sourceConfidence: mediumUnverified dateAFCA describes itself as an ombudsman and external dispute resolution scheme, not a statutory tribunal.Secondary. Scope not stated in the stored source.
Australian Financial Complaints Authority
2026-05-27
AFCA's answers to member questions about rising AI use by complainants and representatives and AFCA's own use of AI.
Generic or AI-generated templates with vague or unsubstantiated allegations are not appropriate
AFCA is monitoring complaint submissions, including from paid representatives
AFCA is exploring AI-enabled tools including transcription, call summaries and efficiency insights
AI does not replace human involvement, especially where decisions are made; complaints are assessed on merits and evidence
Bar Association of Queensland publishes “Cybersecurity and AI - The Bar Association of Queensland”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Bar Association of Queensland publishes “Generative Artificial Intelligence Practice Note 16 April 2026”. Following internal and external consultations, the Federal Court of Australia published the Generative Artificial Intelligence Practice Note on 16 April 2026. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Following internal and external consultations, the Federal Court of Australia published the Generative Artificial Intelligence Practice Note on 16 April 2026.
Court of King’s Bench directive, effective 1 January 2026. It does not prohibit appropriate use of AI. The person who files or presents material must ensure it is accurate, and must independently verify authorities generated, summarised or cited with AI.
Reliance on AI does not reduce the duty to ensure accuracy of written and oral submissions
Unverified or fabricated authorities may attract costs or other sanctions
NAVIGATING THE AI ABYSS: ETHICAL CHALLENGESProfessional guidanceSecondary sourceUnverified dateThe 10 October 2026 search result cut this title off. Open the linked file for the full name.Secondary. Guides barristers. Not a court practice note.
Bar Association of Queensland
12 September 2024 · Effective 2024-09-12
Bar Association of Queensland publishes “NAVIGATING THE AI ABYSS: ETHICAL CHALLENGES”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Notice to the Profession and General Public: AI submissionsPractice noticeCourtPrimary sourceConfidence: lowUnverified dateFetched PDF heading reads Draft Notice. Treat this as an unconfirmed draft, not as a notice in force.Secondary. Scope not stated in the stored source.
Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador
2023-10-12 (draft PDF)
The PDF retrieved for this row is headed as a draft notice. It urges caution with authorities taken from large language models and asks for meaningful human verification of AI-generated submissions. A final issued notice was not confirmed on 10 October 2026, so this row does not record an effective date.
LIJ report on the Victorian Justice Leaders AI Forum convened by the LIV with the Victorian Attorney-General, and the published summary of enablers and actions for AI adoption in the justice sector.
More than 130 leaders from courts, tribunals, regulators and the profession attended
Focus on access to justice, productivity and integrity of the legal system
Summary of priority actions available on the LIV AI Hub; AI is a pillar of the LIV Call to Parties
Bar Association of Queensland publishes “Lawyers who don't embrace AI 'will be left behind', experts say”. Generative artificial intelligence will completely transform the legal industry, potentially decimating the billable hour in the process, and experts say practitioners who don’t embrace the technology will be swiftly replaced by those who do. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Generative artificial intelligence will completely transform the legal industry, potentially decimating the billable hour in the process, and experts say practitioners who don’t embrace the technology will be swiftly replaced by those who do.
While lawyers have used AI for years for tasks like electronic discovery and legal research, the advent of OpenAI’s chatbot ChatGPT has changed the game by introducing the world to generative AI, which can create new content.
AI Companion GuideGuideLaw societyPrimary sourceConfidence: mediumUnverified dateUndated; text refers to 2024.Secondary. Guides lawyers. Not a court practice note.
Queensland Law Society
Not stated
QLS primer on generative AI for solicitors, particularly small and medium firms, covering when to adopt AI and how to build a governance and risk framework.
Aimed at SME practices and in-house solicitors
Adopting AI needs change management and risk management, not just buying software
Read with QLS Guidance Statement No. 37 and the QLS AI Policy template
Ethical duties to the court, clients, colleagues and third parties remain
OIC issues guidance on the use of AIRegulator guidanceSecondary sourceUnverified dateThis is a news item or media release, not a conduct rule.Secondary. Scope not stated in the stored source.
Office of the Information Commissioner Queensland
Not stated
Office of the Information Commissioner Queensland publishes “OIC issues guidance on the use of AI”. Many agencies, including OIC, are seeing an increase in the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to assist external review applicants and privacy complainants. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Many agencies, including OIC, are seeing an increase in the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to assist external review applicants and privacy complainants.
OIC has published new guidance to help individuals and public sector agencies better understand the benefits and challenges of using AI.
QLS announcement of the AI Selection and Use Checklist for Legal Practitioners, developed with the LIV and the law societies of SA, WA, ACT, NT and Tasmania, plus a template client warning on AI use.
First multi-state resource on choosing and using third-party AI tools
Covers confidentiality, risk assessment, vendor arrangements and professional obligations
Aimed at small and mid-sized practices
Companion "Warning to Clients - Use of AI Tools" template released
Office of the Information Commissioner Queensland publishes “Data protection authorities issue joint statement on AI-generated imagery and privacy concerns”. Mr White said the united position highlights the seriousness of the issue, as well as the need for organisations developing and using AI systems to comply with applicable legal frameworks, including data protection and privacy rules. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Mr White said the united position highlights the seriousness of the issue, as well as the need for organisations developing and using AI systems to comply with applicable legal frameworks, including data protection and privacy rules.
QLS releases Guidance Statement on AIMedia releaseLaw societyPrimary sourceConfidence: highProfessional guidance. Guides lawyers. Not a court practice note.
Queensland Law Society
2024-06-06
QLS announcement (6 June 2024) of Guidance Statement No 37, described as the first guidance statement on AI by an Australian law society.
Lists ethical obligations solicitors should consider when using AI
Adopting AI tools requires due diligence and ongoing supervision
What is AI? — Law Society of Western AustraliaLaw society guidanceSecondary sourceUnverified dateThe 10 October 2026 check marked this find as low confidence. Read the page before treating it as the body’s position.Secondary. Guides lawyers. Not a court practice note.
Law Society of Western Australia
Not stated
Law Society of Western Australia publishes “What is AI? — Law Society of Western Australia”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
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 Court GPN-AI effective 16 April 2026 imposes a personal verification obligation
NSW SC Gen 23 (as amended, from 3 February 2025) bars Gen AI generating affidavit, witness statement or character reference content
Victoria's SC Gen 25, effective 14 May 2026, is a binding practice note replacing 2024 guidelines
Practitioners should be able to explain and defend how they used AI
Law Society of Western Australia publishes “Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the Future of Law”. AI can perform complex tasks that once required human input. One part of this article was written by a lawyer and the other part generated by ChatGPT. Can you tell the difference? Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
AI can perform complex tasks that once required human input. One part of this article was written by a lawyer and the other part generated by ChatGPT. Can you tell the difference?
Copyright and generative artificial intelligenceLaw society guidanceSecondary sourceUnverified dateThe 10 October 2026 check marked this find as low confidence. Read the page before treating it as the body’s position.Secondary. Guides lawyers. Not a court practice note.
Law Society of Western Australia
1 May 2012 · Effective 2012-05-01
Law Society of Western Australia publishes “Copyright and generative artificial intelligence”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
News item dated 6 December 2024. The Legal Practice Board of Western Australia, with the Law Society of New South Wales and the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner, announced the joint statement. The page says the statement applies to solicitors in NSW and to solicitors and barristers in Victoria and WA, and is based on the ethical conduct rules. It says the ethical standards in the Legal Profession Uniform Law and conduct rules apply equally to the use of AI. Duties named on this page: maintain client confidentiality; provide independent advice; be honest and deliver legal services competently and diligently; charge costs that are fair, reasonable and proportionate. Lawyers using AI should consider clear risk-based policies to minimise data and security breaches; limit AI to lower-risk tasks, with the page's example of an initial draft of an email, and not use it for higher-risk tasks, with the page's example of translating legal advice into another language; and be transparent, disclosing to clients and the court when and how the technology was used where necessary or mandated by the rules of court. The full statement is linked from the page. This row is the Board's news item, not a substitute for that statement.
Dated 6 December 2024. Applies to solicitors in NSW and to solicitors and barristers in Victoria and WA.
Existing Uniform Law duties apply to AI use: confidentiality, independent advice, honesty and competence, and fair and proportionate costs.
The page's lower-risk example is an initial email draft. Its higher-risk example is translating legal advice.
Disclose AI use to the client and the court where necessary or where court rules require it.
Legal Practice Board of WA publishes “LPBWA - Resources - Legal Practice Board of Western Australia”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Privacy | Legal Aid WAGovernment guidanceSecondary sourceUnverified dateThe 10 October 2026 check marked this find as low confidence. Read the page before treating it as the body’s position.Secondary. Scope not stated in the stored source.
Legal Aid WA
Not stated
Legal Aid WA publishes “Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Privacy | Legal Aid WA”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Legal Aid WA publishes “April 2026 Generative Artificial Intelligence Practice Note (GPN-AI)”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Legal Aid WA publishes “Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia releases Practice Direction on the use of Artificial Intelligence”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Court of Appeal practice direction issued by the President of the Court of Appeal on 11 August 2026 and in operation from 1 September 2026. It sets the Court’s expectations on generative AI in court documents, including the risk of inaccuracy, and is aligned with High Court practice direction HC142.
In operation from 1 September 2026
High Court practice direction HC142 is a separate direction, already recorded for Ireland, and is also in operation from 1 September 2026
Law Society of South Australia publishes “Artificial Intelligence Hub - The Law Society of South Australia”. The Artificial Intelligence Hub brings together practical resources, guidance and key information to assist legal practitioners in understanding and managing the use of AI and generative AI in legal practice. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
The Artificial Intelligence Hub brings together practical resources, guidance and key information to assist legal practitioners in understanding and managing the use of AI and generative AI in legal practice.
See the AI Hub for more information including guidance, tools, resources and answers to frequently asked questions.
Circuit Court practice direction issued by the President of the Circuit Court, in effect from 21 September 2026, for civil and criminal proceedings. It gives guidance on responsible use of generative AI. The direction says non-compliance may lead to sanctions, including adverse costs, disregarding the material, or striking out a claim or defence.
In effect from 21 September 2026 in civil and criminal proceedings
Sanctions for non-compliance can include costs, rejecting the material, or striking out a claim or defence
Law Society of South Australia publishes “Artificial Intelligence, Real Problems: Evidence in the Age of AI”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Law Society of South Australia publishes “Supreme Court issues Artificial Intelligence Guidelines”. The guidelines for the use of Generative AI may be adopted by Tribunals or other South Australia Courts, and we await advice from those Tribunals and Courts as to their position in relation to the use of AI. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
The guidelines for the use of Generative AI may be adopted by Tribunals or other South Australia Courts, and we await advice from those Tribunals and Courts as to their position in relation to the use of AI.
Legal Services Commission of SA publishes “amica - Legal Services Commission of South Australia”. Using Artificial Intelligence (AI), amicaone allows users to see how amica works without involving their former partner – by providing an estimate of a suggested division of money and property, reflected as a percentage split. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Using Artificial Intelligence (AI), amicaone allows users to see how amica works without involving their former partner – by providing an estimate of a suggested division of money and property, reflected as a percentage split.
amicaone’s inbuilt AI considers all the factors of a relationship when giving an estimate of what is a fair split – including the length of the relationship, age and health care needs, contributions to the relationship, and earnings.
Law Society of Tasmania practice page. It says staying informed about AI is part of maintaining professional competence, and it names the duties of competence, confidentiality, independence and integrity. It does not set a new conduct rule. It points members to an AI risk checklist for small and mid-tier firms selecting third-party AI tools. CPD listed on the page: 24 July 2026, Ethical Considerations in the Use of AI in Legal Practice; 14 August 2026, Advocacy at the Fair Work Commission and the Impact of AI; 14 August 2026, Artificial Intelligence and Discrimination; 21 August 2026, GenAI in the Courtroom: Ethical Obligations for Lawyers; 5 March 2027, GenAI Risk in Practice.
The page treats keeping up with AI as part of professional competence.
Duties named on the page: competence, confidentiality, independence and integrity.
CPD on the page runs from 24 July 2026 to 5 March 2027.
Annex III, point 8, classifies as high-risk an AI system used by or on behalf of a judicial authority to research and interpret facts and the law, or to apply the law to facts, and a similar use in alternative dispute resolution. Under Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Chapter III duties for Annex III systems apply from 2 December 2027. The AI Act entered into force on 1 August 2024; that is not the application date of these duties.
Annex III high-risk duties apply from 2 December 2027 (Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, amending Article 113)
Annex I embedded high-risk systems are on a later date, 2 August 2028
Law Society of Tasmania publishes “Practical Tools, Emerging AI, and the Lawyer's Role”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
2027-12-02 (Annex III application); 2028-08-02 (Annex I application)
Article 26 sets duties for deployers of high-risk AI systems, including following the instructions for use, assigning human oversight to competent people, monitoring and keeping logs. Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 moved the application of Chapter III, Sections 1 to 3, to 2 December 2027 for Annex III systems and 2 August 2028 for Annex I systems. Those duties are not in application merely because the Act entered into force on 1 August 2024.
Human oversight is assigned to people who have the competence, training and authority to do it
For Annex III systems the Article 26 duties apply from 2 December 2027, not from 1 August 2024
Commission timeline for the AI Act. The general application date remains 2 August 2026. Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 deferred Chapter III high-risk duties: Annex III from 2 December 2027 and Annex I from 2 August 2028.
GPAI provider obligations applied from 2 August 2025
Annex III high-risk duties apply from 2 December 2027; Annex I from 2 August 2028
Law Society of Tasmania publishes “Can You Be Cruel to AI? A Jurisprudential and Moral Perspective”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, the AI Omnibus, in force on 27 July 2026. It amends Article 113 of the AI Act so Chapter III, Sections 1 to 3, apply from 2 December 2027 for Annex III high-risk systems and from 2 August 2028 for Annex I systems. Most Article 50 transparency duties are unchanged.
Annex III high-risk obligations apply from 2 December 2027
Law Society of Tasmania publishes “Survey into Artificial Intelligence in the Professional Workplace”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Law Society Northern Territory publishes “The Rise of AI and the Implications for Legal Practice - Thursday, 17 September 2026”. Come explore how AI is shaking up the legal world and what it means for your practice. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Come explore how AI is shaking up the legal world and what it means for your practice.
General-Purpose AI Code of PracticeCode of practiceGovernmentPrimary sourceConfidence: mediumProfessional guidance. Scope not stated in the stored source.
European Commission
2025-07-10
Voluntary code helping GPAI model providers comply with AI Act safety, transparency and copyright duties; confirmed adequate by Commission and AI Board.
Law Society Northern Territory publishes “Cyber, AI and PEXA - 4 February 2026 - Law Society NT”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
CEPEJ guidelines (CEPEJ(2025)18Final) on operational and ethical use of generative AI by courts and judicial professionals. This is a Council of Europe instrument, not an EU regulation.
Adopted at the 45th CEPEJ plenary, Strasbourg, 4–5 December 2025
Council of Europe guidance. It is not a regulation of the European Union
Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission publishes “How AI Can Help Separating Couples Resolve Divorce Disputes Online”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and human rights, democracy and the rule of law (CETS 225). It is an international treaty opened for signature on 5 September 2024, not an EU regulation.
Opened for signature on 5 September 2024
Council of Europe treaty. It is not an act of the European Union
OAIC publishes “New AI guidance makes privacy compliance easier for business | OAIC”. New guides for businesses published today by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) clearly articulate how Australian privacy law applies to artificial intelligence (AI) and set out the regulator’s expectations. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
New guides for businesses published today by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) clearly articulate how Australian privacy law applies to artificial intelligence (AI) and set out the regulator’s expectations.
OAIC publishes “Getting AI right benefits businesses, productivity and the community - OAIC”. Strong privacy governance and safeguards are essential for businesses to gain advantage from AI and build trust and confidence in the community. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Strong privacy governance and safeguards are essential for businesses to gain advantage from AI and build trust and confidence in the community.
OAIC publishes “Can personal information be used to develop or train GenAI? - OAIC”. We cover when and why privacy should be considered by developers using personal information to train generative AI models, how our new guidance fits in with that being published globally and how we see it continuing to apply as technology changes. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
We cover when and why privacy should be considered by developers using personal information to train generative AI models, how our new guidance fits in with that being published globally and how we see it continuing to apply as technology changes.
This year, we have seen Australians express increasing concern about the use of their personal information to train generative artificial intelligence (AI) products. The message from the public is clear: organisations need to protect privacy.
These Guidelines apply to all courts in New South Wales and have been developed after a process of consultation with Heads of Jurisdiction and review of recently published guidelines of other common law courts.
Judges in New South Wales should not use Gen AI in the formulation of reasons for judgment or the assessment or analysis of evidence preparatory to the delivery of reasons for judgment.
Gen AI should not be used for editing or proofing draft judgments, and no part of a draft judgment should be submitted to a Gen AI program.
Judges may require litigants (including litigants in person) and legal representatives including counsel to disclose any use of Gen AI in respect of written submissions or other documents placed before the Court, and may also require an assurance that any such documents have been verified for accuracy, including an identification of the process of verification followed including, where applicable, for the purpose of ensuring compliance with Practice Note SC Gen 23.
The Hon. A S Bell, Chief Justice of New South Wales, 21 November 2024.
The Court acknowledges the increasing use of artificial intelligence as a tool in the conduct of litigation. The direction requires the individual practitioner responsible for written submissions to be named at the end of the document; naming the firm is not sufficient.
For written submissions, the individual legal practitioner who is the responsible person must be named at the end of the document. Naming the firm of solicitors on the record is not sufficient (paragraphs 5 and 6).
For written submissions, the responsible person must: (a) verify the accuracy and relevance of any references to legislation, authorities or other sources; and (b) ensure that the document is expressed in terms which reflect their judgment as to the proper discharge of their professional and ethical obligations.
Legal practitioners who are responsible persons for written or oral submissions which are found to contain reference to non-existent cases, legislation or other material, may be the subject of a referral to the Legal Services Commissioner for investigation and/or be required to show cause why a costs order should not be made against them personally.
Self-represented litigants should read the Queensland Courts Guidelines for Responsible Use of Generative AI by Non-Lawyers, a copy of which is published with this Practice Direction.
Brian Devereaux SC, Chief Judge, 25 September 2025.
The guidance statement page states Published 31 May 2024. · Effective 2024-05-31
Queensland Law Society Guidance Statement No. 37, published 31 May 2024, is for solicitors and law practices. The page says it has no legislative or statutory effect, is not legal advice, and will not necessarily be a defence to a conduct complaint. It says the Society does not discourage AI use. It treats Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules 4, 5, 9, 17, 19 and 37 as relevant. If a solicitor uses or permits AI, they must ensure that they and relevant staff have, or can access, the skills to do so. They should take reasonable steps so that an AI tool does not misuse confidential data. Where feasible, the client should be told if an AI tool will be used, and the expectation is stricter the more significant the AI contribution. Each discrete piece of work produced with AI should be checked. The statement describes this as a standard of good practice, not a complete code of AI obligations.
Published 31 May 2024.
The page says the statement has no legislative or statutory effect.
ASCR rules 4, 5, 9, 17, 19 and 37 are treated as applying.
Competence, confidentiality, client notice where feasible, and checking of each piece of AI work are the stated expectations.
These guidelines apply to and in respect of steps taken in proceedings in the Supreme Court, District Court, Magistrates Court, Youth Court, Environment, Resources and Development Court and Court of Disputed Returns governed by the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA) (UCRs), Uniform Special Statutory Rules 2022 (SA) (USSRs) and the Joint Criminal Rules 2022 (SA) (JCRs) on and from 1 January 2026. The publishing page, as read on 10 October 2026, still says it was anticipated that those Rules would be amended in early 2026 to ‘pick up’ the guidelines. The consolidated Uniform Civil Rules 2020 current to 15 March 2026 do not mention generative AI, so the guidelines are not treated here as part of the Rules.
These guidelines may also be adopted, with such modifications as considered appropriate, by Tribunals or other Courts of this State.
Fundamentally, lawyers and litigants must continue to take personal responsibility for their work and their conduct.
Gen AI may support, but must not replace, the professional skills and judgment expected of lawyers conducting litigation.
The results of a task given to Gen AI cannot simply be adopted. A lawyer or litigant must take reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that it is appropriate to use those results, and by doing so takes responsibility for them.
The party filing a legal document need not disclose that they have used Gen AI by making any particular statement in the document, however, they should be in a position to inform a judicial officer, if questioned, about the use of Gen AI.
A lawyer carries a heavy onus of ensuring that the statement or affidavit ultimately produced fairly and fully reflects the witness’ authentic memory and, to the extent possible whilst ensuring that it is admissible, is expressed in the language they use.
It is difficult to envisage circumstances in which it would be appropriate to use Gen AI to alter, enhance or modify photographic or video evidence.
An opinion expressed by an expert that is based on Gen AI is likely to be inadmissible because it will not in fact have resulted from the application of the expert’s own specialised knowledge to particular assumed facts.
An expert should not use Gen AI unless: (a) the way in which it has been deployed is reasonably apparent from the report; (b) the expert (or the party retaining the expert) is in a position to establish the reliability of the work undertaken by Gen AI.
In the case of character references, since these are likely to be brief, and there are few efficiency gains to be achieved by Gen AI, it would rarely, if ever, be appropriate for Gen AI to be used by the author, much less a lawyer, in generating a draft of its content.
The Courts Administration Authority page is dated 19 January 2026. · Effective 2026-01-19
Announcement dated 19 January 2026. After a survey launched by the Chief Justice in May 2025, the Judges of the Supreme Court approved guidelines for Gen AI. The page says the guidelines have been adopted from 1 January 2026 and will shortly be given force under rules that apply to practitioners and litigants. It lists the Supreme Court, District Court, Magistrates Court, Youth Court, Environment, Resources and Development Court and Court of Disputed Returns. It says the guidelines give examples of ethical and responsible use and of improper use, and that further guidance was prepared for self-represented litigants. The examples themselves are in the guidelines, not in this announcement.
Dated 19 January 2026.
Says the guidelines were adopted from 1 January 2026.
Says they will shortly be given force under the rules. It does not say that has already happened.
The Court acknowledges the increasing use of artificial intelligence as a tool in the conduct of litigation. The direction requires the individual practitioner responsible for written submissions to be named at the end of the document; naming the firm is not sufficient.
For written submissions, the individual legal practitioner who is the responsible person must be named at the end of the document. Naming the firm of solicitors on the record is not sufficient (paragraphs 5 and 6).
For written submissions, the responsible person must: (a) verify the accuracy and relevance of any references to legislation, authorities or other sources; and (b) ensure that the document is expressed in terms which reflect their judgment as to the proper discharge of their professional and ethical obligations.
Legal practitioners who are responsible persons for written or oral submissions which are found to contain reference to non-existent cases, legislation or other material, may be the subject of a referral to the Legal Services Commissioner for investigation and/or be required to show cause why a costs order should not be made against them personally.
Self-represented litigants should read the Queensland Courts Guidelines for Responsible Use of Generative AI by Non-Lawyers, a copy of which is published with this Practice Direction.
Brian Devereaux SC, Chief Judge, 25 September 2025.
This Practice Direction is issued to maintain consistency with Supreme Court Practice Direction 5 of 2025. This Practice Direction commences on 29 September 2025. The direction requires the individual practitioner responsible for written submissions to be named at the end of the document; naming the firm is not sufficient.
This Practice Direction commences on 29 September 2025.
For written submissions, the individual legal practitioner who is the responsible person must be named at the end of the document. Naming the firm of solicitors on the record is not sufficient (paragraphs 7 and 8).
For written submissions, the responsible person must – (a) verify the accuracy and relevance of any references to legislation, authorities or other sources; and (b) ensure that the document is expressed in terms which reflect their judgment as to the proper discharge of their professional and ethical obligations.
Legal practitioners who are responsible persons for written or oral submissions which are found to contain reference to non-existent cases, legislation or other material, may be the subject of a referral to the Legal Services Commissioner for investigation and/or be required to show cause why a costs order should not be made against them personally.
Self-represented litigants should read the Queensland Courts Guidelines for Responsible Use of Generative AI by Non-Lawyers, a copy of which is published with this Practice Direction.
Using Generative AICourt guidePrimary sourcePractice note. Guides lawyers. Not a court practice note.
Queensland Courts
Page fetched on 10 October 2026. It does not state a publication or commencement date.
The Queensland Courts page Using Generative AI, fetched on 10 October 2026, tells lawyers and non-lawyers to refer to Supreme Court Practice Direction 5 of 2025, subparagraph 16(l) of Supreme Court Practice Direction 14 of 2024 as amended, District Court Practice Direction 12 of 2025, Planning and Environment Court Practice Direction 7 of 2025, and Land Court Practice Direction 4 of 2025. That list does not include a Magistrates Court practice direction. The page also restates points from the non-lawyer guidelines: a chatbot is not a reliable source of legal truth; private, confidential, suppressed or privileged information should not be entered because it could become publicly known; the user remains responsible for accuracy; and generative AI is not a substitute for a lawyer. It points judicial officers to the separate judicial guidelines. The page does not itself set the obligations in those practice directions.
Lists party practice directions for the Supreme Court, District Court, Planning and Environment Court and Land Court.
Does not list a Magistrates Court practice direction.
Restates the non-lawyer guidance on accuracy, confidentiality and the limits of chatbots.
No new AI guidance found: Office of the Legal Services Commissioner NSWNoticeSecondary sourceUnverified dateNo new AI guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026. This is a search result, not a decision that the body will not publish guidance.No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:olsc.nsw.gov.au artificial intelligence
Office of the Legal Services Commissioner NSW
checked 10 Oct 2026; site search found nothing new
No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:olsc.nsw.gov.au artificial intelligence
Site search recorded on 2026-10-10: site:olsc.nsw.gov.au artificial intelligence.
Law Council portal, last updated on the page as 03/09/2025, maintained as a Futures Committee collection of constituent-body material. It is not itself a conduct ruling. The page says some material may become outdated and practitioners should confirm the current guidance in their own jurisdiction. Improper use may carry ethical, professional and legal risks. As recorded on this page: the Law Institute of Victoria has an Ethical and Responsible Use of AI guidance note, an AI Action Group, CPD and a technology masterclass, and an AI fact sheet still in development; the Law Society of the ACT hosted CPD in March 2025 (AI essentials for sole practitioners and small firms, legal-specific AI tools, and responsible practice covering ethics and risk) and published the 2024 Blackburn Lecture in Ethos; the Law Society of New South Wales lists a solicitor's guide, an AI glossary, court protocols, the Uniform Law statement and CPD; the Law Society of Western Australia is developing draft AI resources which, once finalised, will be published on the portal; the New South Wales Bar Association published guidelines in July 2023 on AI language models including ChatGPT and intends to update them; the Queensland Law Society lists its guidance statement, companion guide and template AI use policy.
Last updated 3 September 2025. A compilation, not a conduct ruling.
The page says Law Society of Western Australia draft AI resources were not yet published.
The page says the NSW Bar intends to update its July 2023 guidelines.
The page records ACT Law Society CPD in March 2025 and the 2024 Blackburn Lecture.
No new AI guidance found: Legal Aid NSWNoticeSecondary sourceUnverified dateNo new AI guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026. This is a search result, not a decision that the body will not publish guidance.No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:legalaid.nsw.gov.au artificial intelligence
Legal Aid NSW
checked 10 Oct 2026; site search found nothing new
No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:legalaid.nsw.gov.au artificial intelligence
Site search recorded on 2026-10-10: site:legalaid.nsw.gov.au artificial intelligence.
Law Council submission on the Fair Work Commission generative-AI guidance note. It supports proportionate rules rather than a ban, with disclosure and verification.
No new AI guidance found: Legal Services Commission QueenslandNoticeSecondary sourceUnverified dateNo new AI guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026. This is a search result, not a decision that the body will not publish guidance.No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:lsc.qld.gov.au artificial intelligence
Legal Services Commission Queensland
checked 10 Oct 2026; site search found nothing new
No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:lsc.qld.gov.au artificial intelligence
Site search recorded on 2026-10-10: site:lsc.qld.gov.au artificial intelligence.
The linked file is a February 2026 joint AI selection and use checklist hosted by the Law Society Northern Territory. Secondary sources say the Law Society of the ACT co-signed it and has its own guidance page. That page was not retrieved on 10 Oct 2026. Unverified.
No new AI guidance found: Legal Aid QueenslandNoticeSecondary sourceUnverified dateNo new AI guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026. This is a search result, not a decision that the body will not publish guidance.No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:legalaid.qld.gov.au artificial intelligence
Legal Aid Queensland
checked 10 Oct 2026; site search found nothing new
No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:legalaid.qld.gov.au artificial intelligence
Site search recorded on 2026-10-10: site:legalaid.qld.gov.au artificial intelligence.
No new AI guidance found: WA Bar AssociationNoticeSecondary sourceUnverified dateNo new AI guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026. This is a search result, not a decision that the body will not publish guidance.No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:wabar.asn.au artificial intelligence
WA Bar Association
checked 10 Oct 2026; site search found nothing new
No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:wabar.asn.au artificial intelligence
Site search recorded on 2026-10-10: site:wabar.asn.au artificial intelligence.
No new AI guidance found: South Australian Bar AssociationNoticeSecondary sourceUnverified dateNo new AI guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026. This is a search result, not a decision that the body will not publish guidance.No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:sabar.org.au artificial intelligence
South Australian Bar Association
checked 10 Oct 2026; site search found nothing new
No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:sabar.org.au artificial intelligence
Site search recorded on 2026-10-10: site:sabar.org.au artificial intelligence.
No new AI guidance found: Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner SANoticeSecondary sourceUnverified dateNo new AI guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026. This is a search result, not a decision that the body will not publish guidance.No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:lpcc.sa.gov.au artificial intelligence
Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner SA
checked 10 Oct 2026; site search found nothing new
No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:lpcc.sa.gov.au artificial intelligence
Site search recorded on 2026-10-10: site:lpcc.sa.gov.au artificial intelligence.
No new AI guidance found: Tasmanian BarNoticeSecondary sourceUnverified dateNo new AI guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026. This is a search result, not a decision that the body will not publish guidance.No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:tasbar.com.au artificial intelligence
Tasmanian Bar
checked 10 Oct 2026; site search found nothing new
No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:tasbar.com.au artificial intelligence
Site search recorded on 2026-10-10: site:tasbar.com.au artificial intelligence.
No new AI guidance found: Legal Profession Board of TasmaniaNoticeSecondary sourceUnverified dateNo new AI guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026. This is a search result, not a decision that the body will not publish guidance.The Legal Profession Board of Tasmania homepage (www.lpbt.com.au), read on 10 October 2026, publishes complaint information, upcoming meeting dates, recent disciplinary decisions, a Law Week 2026 item and an Annual Report 2024-2025 link. That homepage does not publish generative AI guidance. A separate catalogue row, LPBT Update - Mediation and Generative AI viewed through a regulatory lens, records a May 2025 Board update hosted on the Law Society of Tasmania site. This note is a reading of the homepage. The 2024-25 annual report linked from the homepage was not opened.
Legal Profession Board of Tasmania
Homepage read 10 October 2026
The Legal Profession Board of Tasmania homepage (www.lpbt.com.au), read on 10 October 2026, publishes complaint information, upcoming meeting dates, recent disciplinary decisions, a Law Week 2026 item and an Annual Report 2024-2025 link. That homepage does not publish generative AI guidance. A separate catalogue row, LPBT Update - Mediation and Generative AI viewed through a regulatory lens, records a May 2025 Board update hosted on the Law Society of Tasmania site. This note is a reading of the homepage. The 2024-25 annual report linked from the homepage was not opened.
Homepage read on 10 October 2026 does not publish generative AI guidance.
A separate catalogue row records a May 2025 Board update hosted on the Law Society of Tasmania site.
The 2024-25 annual report linked from the homepage was not opened.
No new AI guidance found: Legal Aid Commission of TasmaniaNoticeSecondary sourceUnverified dateNo new AI guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026. This is a search result, not a decision that the body will not publish guidance.No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:legalaid.tas.gov.au artificial intelligence
Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania
checked 10 Oct 2026; site search found nothing new
No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:legalaid.tas.gov.au artificial intelligence
Site search recorded on 2026-10-10: site:legalaid.tas.gov.au artificial intelligence.
No new AI guidance found: Law Society of the ACTNoticeSecondary sourceUnverified dateNo new AI guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026. This is a search result, not a decision that the body will not publish guidance.No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:actlawsociety.asn.au artificial intelligence
Law Society of the ACT
checked 10 Oct 2026; site search found nothing new
No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:actlawsociety.asn.au artificial intelligence
Site search recorded on 2026-10-10: site:actlawsociety.asn.au artificial intelligence.
No new AI guidance found: ACT Bar AssociationNoticeSecondary sourceUnverified dateNo new AI guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026. This is a search result, not a decision that the body will not publish guidance.No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:actbar.com.au artificial intelligence
ACT Bar Association
checked 10 Oct 2026; site search found nothing new
No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:actbar.com.au artificial intelligence
Site search recorded on 2026-10-10: site:actbar.com.au artificial intelligence.
No new AI guidance found: Legal Aid ACTNoticeSecondary sourceUnverified dateNo new AI guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026. This is a search result, not a decision that the body will not publish guidance.No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:legalaidact.org.au artificial intelligence
Legal Aid ACT
checked 10 Oct 2026; site search found nothing new
No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:legalaidact.org.au artificial intelligence
Site search recorded on 2026-10-10: site:legalaidact.org.au artificial intelligence.
No new AI guidance found: Northern Territory Bar AssociationNoticeSecondary sourceUnverified dateNo new AI guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026. This is a search result, not a decision that the body will not publish guidance.No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:ntba.asn.au artificial intelligence
Northern Territory Bar Association
checked 10 Oct 2026; site search found nothing new
No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:ntba.asn.au artificial intelligence
Site search recorded on 2026-10-10: site:ntba.asn.au artificial intelligence.
Guide for NSW solicitors, updated January 2026. It is guidance on existing duties, not a new conduct rule. Solicitors remain responsible for the accuracy of advice. Generative AI use does not remove the duty to deliver legal services competently, diligently and as promptly as possible (Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules r 4.1.3). A solicitor who supervises others must be particularly aware of generative AI risks. Reasonable supervision requires critical evaluation of the accuracy and completeness of the tool's outputs, and a junior solicitor may not have the experience to make that evaluation (r 37). The guide says generative AI takes information entered, uses it to learn, and discloses it to other users, so placing confidential client information into a publicly available generative AI system is akin to putting it in the public domain. That is likely to breach confidentiality, and the client may lose privilege (r 9). Solicitors must exercise their own judgment and are not a mere mouthpiece for their clients, irrespective of the views of any generative AI system (r 17). They must not mislead the court, even inadvertently, must test material before it is presented, and should not rely on generative AI to verify sources the tool itself produced (r 19). Information produced under compulsion must not be disclosed when using generative AI (Harman undertaking). Costs must be fair, reasonable and proportionate to the work completed (Legal Profession Uniform Law s 172), and the basis of charging must be disclosed (s 174). Where time-based billing is used, time saved by generative AI should be reflected in the bill.
Placing confidential client information into a public generative AI system that learns from inputs and discloses them to other users is treated as akin to putting it in the public domain (r 9).
Review and verify outputs. Do not use generative AI to check whether sources it produced are real.
Exercise independent judgment. The solicitor is not a mere mouthpiece for their client, irrespective of the views of any generative AI system (r 17).
Supervision requires critical evaluation of the tool's outputs (r 37).
If the practice bills by time, time saved should appear in the bill. Disclose the basis of costs (Uniform Law ss 172 and 174).
Do not disclose material produced under compulsion when using a generative AI tool.
Ethics FAQ answer, not a separate conduct rule. Using generative AI to provide legal advice may breach professional obligations. Rule 9: generative AI takes information inputted, uses it to learn, and discloses it to other users, so inputting confidential client information puts it in the public domain, may breach confidentiality, and may cause the client to lose privilege. The answer also says this may lead to defamation issues. Rule 4: the solicitor is responsible for the accuracy of advice wherever the research was done; it may be appropriate to disclose generative AI use to the client; the tool can hallucinate, rely on out-of-date material, plagiarise, or be biased, and its use can open a path to a cyber attack. Rule 17: the solicitor must not be a mere mouthpiece but must independently exercise their own judgment, irrespective of the views of generative AI. Rule 19: do not mislead or deceive the court, including by presenting research whose validity has not been tested. The answer says generative AI is useful only if its risks and limitations are understood, and that the Law Society is producing further education resources.
Do not input confidential client information into generative AI that learns from inputs and discloses them to other users. The FAQ says that puts the information in the public domain (r 9).
The solicitor remains responsible for accuracy and may need to tell the client that generative AI was used (r 4).
The solicitor must not be a mere mouthpiece and must exercise their own judgment, irrespective of the views of generative AI (r 17).
Test research before it is presented to the court (r 19).
2024-25 annual report. A publication date is not printed on the passages read.
This is the Commissioner's 2024-25 annual report, not a conduct ruling or practice direction. The report says the OLSC has been alert to complaints about alleged misuse of generative artificial intelligence since ChatGPT's release on 30 November 2022. It welcomes Supreme Court Practice Note SC Gen 23 (28 January 2025), the Law Society of New South Wales guide (described in the report as October 2024) and the New South Wales Bar Association guidelines of 12 July 2023. It says lawyers must be mindful to use AI responsibly not only in court and other legal documents, but also in social media, blog posts, advertorials and marketing that members of the public may access and rely on as legal information, if not legal advice. The report says the office had not yet received consumer complaints about a lawyer's misuse of generative AI, and that some complaints the office suspects were prepared with generative AI contained fake case citations and references, including a quoted legislative section that does not exist.
Not a conduct ruling. It is the 2024-25 annual report.
Lawyers must be mindful to use AI responsibly in court documents and in public marketing and social media that people may rely on as legal information.
The report says the OLSC had not yet received a consumer complaint about a lawyer's misuse of generative AI.
Some complaints suspected to have been prepared with generative AI contained fake citations.
Artificial intelligence resourcesLaw society resourceLaw societyPrimary sourceConfidence: highProfessional guidance. Guides lawyers. Not a court practice note.
Queensland Law Society
The page lists document dates; it does not print one publication date for the page itself
QLS resources page for the AI in Legal Practice Consulting Committee, established in 2024. The page does not itself set conduct rules. It lists: Guidance Statement on Artificial Intelligence in Legal Practice (updated 24 October 2024); AI Companion Guide (September 2024); template warning to clients about client use of AI and confidential information (April 2026); joint AI selection and use checklist of QLS, LIV, LSSA, LSWA, the ACT Law Society, the Law Society Northern Territory and the Law Society of Tasmania (February 2026); template AI use policy (April 2023). The page lists Billing the Bot: Client cost setting in the age of AI, a livestream recorded 19 February 2025. On-demand resources can be purchased through the QLS Shop.
Guidance Statement listed as updated 24 October 2024.
Client-warning template dated April 2026 and joint selection checklist dated February 2026.
Billing the Bot, livestream recorded 19 February 2025. On-demand resources can be purchased through the QLS Shop.
This Practice Note was issued on 28 January 2025, commences on 3 February 2025 and will apply to all proceedings from that date.
Gen AI must not be used in generating the content of affidavits, witness statements, character references or other material that is intended to reflect the deponent or witness’ evidence and/or opinion, or other material tendered in evidence or used in cross examination.
This paragraph does not prohibit the use of Gen AI for work that is merely preparatory to the drafting of the affidavit or other document setting out the witness’ evidence and/or opinion.
An affidavit, witness statement or character reference must contain a disclosure that Gen AI was not used in generating: (a) its content (including by way of altering, embellishing, strengthening or diluting or rephrasing a witness’s evidence); or (b) subject to leave having been obtained in accordance with paragraph 15 below, the content of any annexure or exhibit prepared by the deponent of the affidavit or witness statement or character reference for the purposes of his or her evidence.
Subject to paragraph 23 below, Gen AI must not be used to draft or prepare the content of an expert report (or any part of an expert report) without prior leave of the Court.
Where Gen AI has been used in the preparation of written submissions or summaries or skeletons of argument, the author must verify in the body of the submissions, summaries or skeleton, that all citations, legal and academic authority and case law and legislative references: (a) exist, (b) are accurate, and (c) are relevant to the proceedings, and make similar verification in relation to references to evidence in written submissions or summaries or skeletons of argument to evidence (whether the evidence be contained in affidavits or transcript).
Such verification must not be solely carried out by using a Gen AI tool or program.
This Practice Note was issued and commences on 14 May 2026.
This Practice Note applies to all Court users.
This Practice Note was issued replacing the Guidelines for Litigants: Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence in Litigation of May 2024.
Court users can utilise AI in the preparation of Court documents if they comply with this Practice Note.
Content produced using AI must be verified with meaningful human control.
One AI tool cannot be used to confirm the content generated by another AI tool.
Particular caution must be exercised if GenAI tools are used to assist in the preparation of affidavit materials, witness statements or other documents which form the evidence or potential evidence of a witness.
Court users should not enter any information which is confidential or sensitive (including information subject to a non-publication or suppression order) into a public AI tool.
The Court acknowledges the increasing use of artificial intelligence as a tool in the conduct of litigation.
For written submissions, the responsible person must – (a) verify the accuracy and relevance of any references to legislation, authorities or other sources; and (b) ensure that the document is expressed in terms which reflect their judgment as to the proper discharge of their professional and ethical obligations.
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was replaced by the Administrative Review TribunalNoticeTribunalSecondary sourceConfidence: mediumUnverified dateOn 10 October 2026 a direct request to this page did not return the document. The sentence was returned by a search retrieval of the same URL that day. No separate AAT generative-AI instrument was found. ART instruments already in the catalogue are the successor’s.Secondary. Scope not stated in the stored source.
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
2024-10-14
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was replaced by the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 14 October 2024.
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was replaced by the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 14 October 2024. This page contains information relating to the former AAT.
Section 6068.1 was added to the Business and Professions Code by SB 574 (Stats. 2026, ch. 858). The Governor approved it on 30 September 2026, and it applies from 1 January 2027. It applies to California attorneys (lawyers) under the State Bar Act. An attorney shall not delegate the practice of law to generative artificial intelligence. An attorney who uses generative AI to assist in the practice of law must keep confidential, personal identifying and other nonpublic information out of systems where access is not restricted to the attorney and persons authorised by the attorney who are bound to protect it. The attorney must take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of outputs, including all case and statutory citations, and to correct erroneous or hallucinated output. The attorney must also disclose the use of generative AI to the court for all documents submitted to the court. Not yet in force until 1 January 2027.
(a)(1) Nothing in this section shall be construed to abrogate an attorney’s duty to exercise reasonable competence and diligence in the practice of law.
(a)(2) An attorney shall not delegate the practice of law to generative artificial intelligence.
(a)(3)(A) Not enter confidential, personal identifying, and other nonpublic information into a generative artificial intelligence system for which access to confidential, personal identifying, or other nonpublic information the attorney inputs into the system is not restricted to the attorney and persons authorized by the attorney under obligations to protect the confidentiality of the information.
(a)(3)(B) Take reasonable steps to do both of the following: (i) Verify the accuracy of generative artificial intelligence outputs, including, but not limited to, the accuracy of all case and statutory citations. (ii) Correct any erroneous or hallucinated output in any material used by the attorney.
(a)(3)(C) Disclose the use of generative artificial intelligence to the court for all documents submitted to the court and consider whether to disclose the use of generative artificial intelligence if it is used to create content provided to the public.
(b)(2) “Personal identifying information” includes driver’s license numbers, dates of birth, social security numbers, National Crime Information and Criminal Identification and Information numbers, addresses and phone numbers of parties, victims, witnesses, and court personnel, medical or psychiatric information, financial information, account numbers, and any other content sealed by court order or deemed confidential by court rule or statute.
SB 574 amends Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 so that a brief, pleading, motion or other paper filed in any California court must not contain citations that the responsible attorney has not personally verified. This includes citations provided by generative AI. It binds lawyers who submit filings. Breaches are subject to the section 128.7 sanctions framework, but monetary sanctions for a breach of paragraph (b)(2) may not be awarded against a represented party. Not yet in force until 1 January 2027.
(b)(2)(A) A brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court shall not contain any citations that an attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally verified, including any citation provided by generative artificial intelligence.
(c)(1) Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, associates, and employees.
(d)(1) Monetary sanctions may not be awarded against a represented party for a violation of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b).
No AI guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026.No guidance foundPrimary sourceOnly submissions found (e.g. "AI: Governance and Leadership"); scrape returned no text. No practitioner guidance.
Law Council of Australia
searched
Only submissions found (e.g. "AI: Governance and Leadership"); scrape returned no text. No practitioner guidance.
No generative AI practice direction on the practice directions index (checked 10 Oct 2026)No guidance foundPrimary sourceConfidence: highUnverified dateIndex fetched on 10 October 2026. Practice Direction 6 of 2019 was not opened.The Supreme Court of Tasmania practice directions index was fetched on 10 October 2026. It lists directions through Practice Direction 1 of 2026, Criminal Case Management List. None of the listed titles is an artificial intelligence or generative AI direction. Practice Direction 6 of 2019 is titled Technology in Civil Litigation and Appeals. That PDF was not opened, so this note does not say what it covers. This is a check of the index, not a finding that no other notice exists off that page.
Supreme Court of Tasmania
Index fetched on 10 October 2026. The index does not give an AI instrument an effective date.
The Supreme Court of Tasmania practice directions index was fetched on 10 October 2026. It lists directions through Practice Direction 1 of 2026, Criminal Case Management List. None of the listed titles is an artificial intelligence or generative AI direction. Practice Direction 6 of 2019 is titled Technology in Civil Litigation and Appeals. That PDF was not opened, so this note does not say what it covers. This is a check of the index, not a finding that no other notice exists off that page.
Index includes Practice Direction 1 of 2026.
No listed title is an AI or generative AI direction.
No artificial intelligence practice direction on the practice directions list (checked 10 Oct 2026)No guidance foundPrimary sourceConfidence: highThe ACT Supreme Court practice directions page was fetched on 10 October 2026. The general list runs through Practice Direction 9 of 2026, effective 14 August 2026, and includes Court Technology (Practice Direction 3 of 2018) and Citation of Authority (Practice Direction 2 of 2022). None of the listed directions is about artificial intelligence or generative AI. The Court of Appeal directions on the same page were also listed, and none is an AI direction. This is a check of that list.
Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
Practice directions page fetched on 10 October 2026. The list does not give an AI instrument an effective date.
The ACT Supreme Court practice directions page was fetched on 10 October 2026. The general list runs through Practice Direction 9 of 2026, effective 14 August 2026, and includes Court Technology (Practice Direction 3 of 2018) and Citation of Authority (Practice Direction 2 of 2022). None of the listed directions is about artificial intelligence or generative AI. The Court of Appeal directions on the same page were also listed, and none is an AI direction. This is a check of that list.
Practice directions page fetched on 10 October 2026.
General list includes Practice Direction 9 of 2026.
No listed direction is about artificial intelligence.
No artificial intelligence practice direction on the Magistrates Court practice directions list (checked 10 Oct 2026)No guidance foundPrimary sourceUnverified datePractice directions list fetched on 10 October 2026. Practice Direction 3 of 2024 was not opened.The ACT Magistrates Court practice directions page was fetched on 10 October 2026. The list includes Practice Direction 2 of 2026, Standard Directions in Civil Matters, dated 29 June 2026, Practice Direction 1 of 2026 on family and personal violence, and Practice Direction 3 of 2024, Remote appearances and the use of technology in the courtroom. It also lists Childrens Court, Industrial Court and Galambany Court directions. None of the listed titles is an artificial intelligence or generative AI direction. Practice Direction 3 of 2024 was not opened, so this note does not say whether that PDF mentions AI. This is a check of that list.
Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory
Practice directions list fetched on 10 October 2026. The list does not give an AI instrument an effective date.
The ACT Magistrates Court practice directions page was fetched on 10 October 2026. The list includes Practice Direction 2 of 2026, Standard Directions in Civil Matters, dated 29 June 2026, Practice Direction 1 of 2026 on family and personal violence, and Practice Direction 3 of 2024, Remote appearances and the use of technology in the courtroom. It also lists Childrens Court, Industrial Court and Galambany Court directions. None of the listed titles is an artificial intelligence or generative AI direction. Practice Direction 3 of 2024 was not opened, so this note does not say whether that PDF mentions AI. This is a check of that list.
Practice directions list fetched on 10 October 2026.
Includes Practice Direction 2 of 2026 and Practice Direction 3 of 2024.
No listed title is an artificial intelligence or generative AI direction.
No generative AI practice direction on the current practice directions list (checked 10 Oct 2026)No guidance foundPrimary sourceConfidence: mediumUnverified dateCurrent list fetched on 10 October 2026. Practice Direction 2 of 2002 was not opened. Expired directions were not fetched.The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory current practice directions page was fetched on 10 October 2026. The list runs from Practice Direction 1 of 2025, Lists of Authorities and Summaries of Submissions, back to Practice Direction 1 of 1992, and includes Associate Judge and Registrar memoranda through Registrar's Memorandum 1 of 2026. None of the listed titles is an artificial intelligence or generative AI direction. Practice Direction 2 of 2002 is titled Guidelines for the use of information technology in any civil matter. That PDF was not opened, so this note does not say what it covers. This is a check of the current list. Expired directions are on a separate page that was not fetched.
Supreme Court of the Northern Territory
Current practice directions page fetched on 10 October 2026. The list does not give an AI instrument an effective date.
The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory current practice directions page was fetched on 10 October 2026. The list runs from Practice Direction 1 of 2025, Lists of Authorities and Summaries of Submissions, back to Practice Direction 1 of 1992, and includes Associate Judge and Registrar memoranda through Registrar's Memorandum 1 of 2026. None of the listed titles is an artificial intelligence or generative AI direction. Practice Direction 2 of 2002 is titled Guidelines for the use of information technology in any civil matter. That PDF was not opened, so this note does not say what it covers. This is a check of the current list. Expired directions are on a separate page that was not fetched.
Current list includes Practice Direction 1 of 2025 and Registrar's Memorandum 1 of 2026.
No listed title is an artificial intelligence or generative AI direction.
Practice Direction 2 of 2002 was not opened. The expired-directions page was not fetched.
No guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026: Australian Bar AssociationNo guidance foundBarPrimary sourceNo standalone ABA AI instrument was found as of 10 Oct 2026. The general news address is a script-rendered list and did not yield a separate ABA practice notice in this review. The Federal Court's 30 April 2025 Notice to the Profession is already recorded against the Court.
Australian Bar Association
Not stated
No standalone ABA AI instrument was found as of 10 Oct 2026. The general news address is a script-rendered list and did not yield a separate ABA practice notice in this review. The Federal Court's 30 April 2025 Notice to the Profession is already recorded against the Court.
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)
Not stated
No public AI policy or guidance for prosecutors or defence found by search on 10 Oct 2026. The 2023-24 annual report mentions an AI strategy under development (separate row).
The Legal Aid NSW "Policy Online" page for lawyers had no AI-specific policy for panel or in-house lawyers on 10 Oct 2026. Public-facing AI pages already exist in earlier batches.
No TASCAT AI practice direction or guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026 (Practice Directions list, News and self-represented parties fact sheet checked; no AI mentions).
No WA SAT AI practice note found as of 10 Oct 2026 (Practice Notes list and homepage checked; no AI mentions). Supreme Court of WA Gen AI guidelines exist separately.
No guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026: Copyright Tribunal of AustraliaNo guidance foundTribunalPrimary sourceNo Copyright Tribunal AI practice guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026 (homepage and practice-and-procedure page checked; both minimal). Proceedings run through the Federal Court registry, so the Federal Court GPN-AI may be relevant.
Copyright Tribunal of Australia
Not stated
No Copyright Tribunal AI practice guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026 (homepage and practice-and-procedure page checked; both minimal). Proceedings run through the Federal Court registry, so the Federal Court GPN-AI may be relevant.
No AI guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026 (homepage checked; web search for AI/recording returned nothing tribunal-specific). NCAT Guardianship Division is covered by NCAT PD7.
No guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026: South Australian Civil and Administrative TribunalNo guidance foundTribunalPrimary sourceNo SACAT-specific AI practice direction or guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026 (homepage, Who we are and Preparing for a hearing checked; site search returned nothing on AI; legislation/practice-directions URL returned 404). Note: SA courts' Gen AI guidelines exist separately.
South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Not stated
No SACAT-specific AI practice direction or guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026 (homepage, Who we are and Preparing for a hearing checked; site search returned nothing on AI; legislation/practice-directions URL returned 404). Note: SA courts' Gen AI guidelines exist separately.
No ACAT AI practice direction or guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026 (homepage, About ACAT, Attending ACAT and Remote attendance pages checked; no AI mentions).
No guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026: Office of the Legal Services Commissioner (NSW)No guidance foundRegulatorPrimary sourceNo standalone OLSC AI guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026 (homepage, For the Profession and Disciplinary Action pages checked). The 2023-24 Annual Report only records staff AI learning (e.g. a LexisNexis enterprise-AI session and the College of Law AI & Legal Practice & Ethics webinar). OLSC co-badged regulator AI statements are covered elsewhere.
Office of the Legal Services Commissioner (NSW)
Not stated
No standalone OLSC AI guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026 (homepage, For the Profession and Disciplinary Action pages checked). The 2023-24 Annual Report only records staff AI learning (e.g. a LexisNexis enterprise-AI session and the College of Law AI & Legal Practice & Ethics webinar). OLSC co-badged regulator AI statements are covered elsewhere.
No guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026: Legal Services Commission (Queensland)No guidance foundRegulatorPrimary sourceNo Queensland Legal Services Commission AI guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026 (homepage, For the profession and Policies and guidelines pages checked). QLS Guidance Statement No 37 is the main Queensland solicitor guidance.
Legal Services Commission (Queensland)
Not stated
No Queensland Legal Services Commission AI guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026 (homepage, For the profession and Policies and guidelines pages checked). QLS Guidance Statement No 37 is the main Queensland solicitor guidance.
No new LPCC practitioner AI guidance found beyond the existing complainant AI fact sheet as of 10 Oct 2026 (homepage and making-a-complaint page checked).
No guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026: The Tasmanian BarNo guidance foundBarPrimary sourceNo Tasmanian Bar AI guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026 (homepage and proposed Barristers Rules 2026 notice checked; only a LinkedIn event on AI and junior lawyers surfaced in search).
The Tasmanian Bar
Not stated
No Tasmanian Bar AI guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026 (homepage and proposed Barristers Rules 2026 notice checked; only a LinkedIn event on AI and junior lawyers surfaced in search).
No guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026: ACT Bar AssociationNo guidance foundBarPrimary sourceNo ACT Bar AI guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026 (homepage, Resources/Media releases and ACT Bar Rules 2026 PDF checked; no AI mentions).
ACT Bar Association
Not stated
No ACT Bar AI guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026 (homepage, Resources/Media releases and ACT Bar Rules 2026 PDF checked; no AI mentions).
No guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026: Law Society Northern TerritoryNo guidance foundLaw societyPrimary sourceNo NT-specific AI guidance document found on the Law Society NT homepage as of 10 Oct 2026 (AI CPD events exist and LSNT co-developed the QLS-led AI checklist).
Law Society Northern Territory
Not stated
No NT-specific AI guidance document found on the Law Society NT homepage as of 10 Oct 2026 (AI CPD events exist and LSNT co-developed the QLS-led AI checklist).
Privacy and freedom-of-information regimes for the Commonwealth and each state and territory, and what the 10 October 2026 check recorded about AI. Confirm the statute, and any commencement proclamation, before reliance.
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) + APPs; Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024. FOI: Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). Applies to most private-sector entities over A$3m turnover and to all federal agencies; law firms handling client personal information are usually covered. The OAIC has issued guidance on commercial AI products and on training generative AI. The 2024 amendments add automated-decision transparency in privacy policies (from 10 Dec 2026) and a statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy. Checked 2026-10-10.
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) + APPs; Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024
FOI: Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth)
OAIC: Privacy and commercially available AI products — https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/privacy-guidance-for-organisations-and-government-agencies/guidance-on-privacy-and-the-use-of-commercially-available-ai-products
OAIC blog: training GenAI with personal information — https://www.oaic.gov.au/news/blog/can-personal-information-be-used-to-develop-or-train-a-generative-ai-model
Statute names from official sources; how they apply to AI is a summary to verify.
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (PPIP Act); Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002; Mandatory Notification of Data Breach scheme (from 28 Nov 2023). FOI: Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA Act). Covers NSW public-sector agencies (private firms fall under the Cth Act). The IPC has published a guide to the privacy risks of generative AI tools and a guide to privacy impact assessments for AI systems. Prompts and outputs held by agencies may be "government information" under GIPA. Checked 2026-10-10.
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (PPIP Act); Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002; Mandatory Notification of Data Breach scheme (from 28 Nov 2023)
FOI: Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA Act)
IPC: Privacy risks of generative AI tools — https://www.ipc.nsw.gov.au/resources/guide-privacy-risks-associated-use-generative-ai-tools
IPC: PIAs on AI systems — https://www.ipc.nsw.gov.au/resources/guide-guide-undertaking-privacy-impact-assessments-ai-systems-and-project
Statute names from official sources; how they apply to AI is a summary to verify.
Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 (IPPs; Victorian Protective Data Security Standards); Health Records Act 2001. FOI: Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Vic). OVIC guidance covers AI privacy obligations and enterprise GenAI tools in the Victorian public sector. VLA tells panel practitioners how to protect privacy and data. Checked 2026-10-10.
Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 (IPPs; Victorian Protective Data Security Standards); Health Records Act 2001
FOI: Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Vic)
OVIC: AI – understanding privacy obligations — https://ovic.vic.gov.au/privacy/resources-for-organisations/artificial-intelligence-understanding-privacy-obligations/
OVIC: Enterprise GenAI tools in the Victorian public sector — https://ovic.vic.gov.au/privacy/resources-for-organisations/use-of-enterprise-generative-ai-tools-in-the-victorian-public-sector/
VLA: Privacy and data obligations for panel practitioners — https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/protecting-privacy-and-data-security-obligations-panel-practitioners
Statute names from official sources; how they apply to AI is a summary to verify.
Information Privacy Act 2009 as amended by the Information Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2023 (QPPs and a mandatory data-breach scheme from 1 Jul 2025). FOI: Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld). The OIC has issued guidance on AI use and on using AI in external reviews or privacy complaints, and joined the Feb 2026 joint statement by data protection authorities on AI-generated content. Checked 2026-10-10.
Information Privacy Act 2009 as amended by the Information Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2023 (QPPs and a mandatory data-breach scheme from 1 Jul 2025)
FOI: Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld)
OIC Qld: Guidance on the use of AI — https://www.oic.qld.gov.au/about-us/news-events/oic-issues-guidance-on-the-use-of-ai
OIC Qld: Joint statement on AI-generated content — https://www.oic.qld.gov.au/about-us/news-events/data-protection-authorities-issue-joint-statement-on-ai-genera
Statute names from official sources; how they apply to AI is a summary to verify.
Privacy and Responsible Information Sharing Act 2024 (WA), assent 6 December 2024. Privacy and Responsible Information Sharing Act 2024 Commencement Proclamation 2026 (SL 2026/128, published 24 Jun 2026). 1 July 2025: Information Commissioner Act 2024 and PRIS Act Part 2 Div 12, Part 3 Div 8, Parts 4-5 (officeholders: Information Commissioner, Privacy Deputy Commissioner, Chief Data Officer) 1 July 2026: Operative privacy (IPPs) and responsible information sharing provisions in force for WA public entities “New privacy and data sharing laws commence on 1 July 2026.” 1 January 2027: Mandatory reporting of serious data breaches “From 1 January 2027, government agencies will be required to report serious data breaches to the Information Commissioner and to the people affected.” Freedom of Information Act 1992 (WA). WA's first public-sector privacy statute. It also covers automated decision-making. Legal Aid WA has published an AI and privacy explainer for lawyers. Proclamation SL 2026/128 was published on 24 June 2026. Officeholder provisions commenced on 1 July 2025. Operative privacy and responsible information sharing commenced on 1 July 2026. Mandatory serious-breach reporting commences on 1 January 2027. Open the proclamation before reliance.
Proclamation SL 2026/128 was published on 24 June 2026. Officeholder provisions commenced on 1 July 2025. Operative privacy and responsible information sharing commenced on 1 July 2026. Mandatory serious-breach reporting commences on 1 January 2027. Open the proclamation before reliance.
Privacy and Responsible Information Sharing Act 2024 (WA) (IPPs; commencing in stages)
FOI: Freedom of Information Act 1992 (WA)
1 July 2025: Information Commissioner Act 2024 and PRIS Act Part 2 Div 12, Part 3 Div 8, Parts 4-5 (officeholders: Information Commissioner, Privacy Deputy Commissioner, Chief Data Officer)
1 July 2026: Operative privacy (IPPs) and responsible information sharing provisions in force for WA public entities “New privacy and data sharing laws commence on 1 July 2026.”
1 January 2027: Mandatory reporting of serious data breaches “From 1 January 2027, government agencies will be required to report serious data breaches to the Information Commissioner and to the people affected.”
Legal Aid WA: AI and privacy — https://www.legalaid.wa.gov.au/lawyers/law-hub/artificial-intelligence-ai-and-privacy
WA legislation (PRIS Act 2024) — https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/
Department of the Premier and Cabinet (South Australia)
No privacy statute; Information Privacy Principles Instruction (Premier and Cabinet Circular PC012) binds agencies. FOI: Freedom of Information Act 1991 (SA). SA agencies follow the IPPs Instruction and the SA Privacy Committee. Private firms fall under the Cth Act. No SA-specific AI privacy guidance found. Checked 2026-10-10.
No privacy statute; Information Privacy Principles Instruction (Premier and Cabinet Circular PC012) binds agencies
FOI: Freedom of Information Act 1991 (SA)
SA DPC: Information privacy — https://www.dpc.sa.gov.au/responsibilities/protective-security-framework/information-management/privacy
Ombudsman SA (FOI) — https://www.ombudsman.sa.gov.au/
Statute names from official sources; how they apply to AI is a summary to verify.
Personal Information Protection Act 2004 (Tas). FOI: Right to Information Act 2009 (Tas). Covers Tasmanian public bodies. No Tasmania-specific AI privacy guidance found. Checked 2026-10-10.
Information Privacy Act 2014 (ACT) (TPPs); Health Records (Privacy and Access) Act 1997. FOI: Freedom of Information Act 2016 (ACT). The OAIC administers ACT public-sector privacy under arrangement, and the ACT Ombudsman handles FOI. No ACT-specific AI privacy guidance found. Checked 2026-10-10.
Information Privacy Act 2014 (ACT) (TPPs); Health Records (Privacy and Access) Act 1997
FOI: Freedom of Information Act 2016 (ACT)
OAIC: Privacy in the ACT — https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/privacy-in-your-state/privacy-in-the-act
Information Act 2002 (NT) (IPPs and FOI combined). FOI: Information Act 2002 (NT). One Act covers both privacy and FOI for NT public bodies, administered by the NT Information Commissioner. No NT AI guidance found. Checked 2026-10-10.
Information Act 2002 (NT) (IPPs and FOI combined)
FOI: Information Act 2002 (NT)
NT Information Commissioner — https://infocomm.nt.gov.au/
Statute names from official sources; how they apply to AI is a summary to verify.
