Supreme Court Practice Note SC Gen 23 from 3 February 2025, and separate notes for the District Court, Local Court, Land and Environment Court, NCAT and the Personal Injury Commission.
From 3 February 2025, Supreme Court Practice Note SC Gen 23 applies to all proceedings in that Court. It was reissued on 28 January 2025. The Law Society of New South Wales also lists separate generative-AI notes for the District Court, the Local Court, the Land and Environment Court, NCAT and the Personal Injury Commission. Do not use the Supreme Court note as the rule for those other forums.
SC Gen 23 allows some preparatory uses, including chronologies, indexes and summaries, and then sets separate rules for witness evidence, submissions and expert reports. Paragraphs 9A to 24 are the part to read against the document you are preparing.
Paragraph 1.2 adopts Supreme Court Practice Note SC Gen 23 in its current form and as it may be amended. The Local Court note does not add a separate disclosure formula.
Paragraph 1 adopts Supreme Court Practice Note SC Gen 23 in its current form and as it may be amended. The District Court note does not add a separate disclosure formula. The Court’s PDF then sets out SC Gen 23.
Planning and environmental litigation in this Court follows this Court’s note. SC Gen 23 is the Supreme Court’s note and does not travel with the solicitor.
Local Court of New South Wales — 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.
Supreme Court of New South Wales — This Practice Note was issued on 28 January 2025, commences on 3 February 2025 and will apply to all proceedings from that date.
Workers compensation and motor accident disputes in the Commission follow the Commission’s note. They do not follow SC Gen 23 merely because the practitioner is in New South Wales.
NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal — Plain-English NCAT fact sheet explaining what Gen AI is and the restrictions on using it in Tribunal proceedings, read with Procedural Direction 7.
NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal — 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.
NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal — 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.
Personal Injury Commission (NSW) — 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.
Personal Injury Commission (NSW) — PIC President's direction adopting the Guidelines for New South Wales Judges on use of Gen AI for Commission decision-makers.
Personal Injury Commission (NSW) — 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.
Personal Injury Commission (NSW) — PIC procedural direction for self-represented litigants (commencing 14 July 2026) with a section on using Gen AI, social media and online resources.
Mental Health Review Tribunal (NSW) — 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.
Law Society of New South Wales, Legal Practice Board of Western Australia, and Victorian Legal Services Board + Commissioner — 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.
NSW Information and Privacy Commission — 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.
NSW Information and Privacy Commission — 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.
NSW Information and Privacy Commission — 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.
Information and Privacy Commission NSW — 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".
Office of the Legal Services Commissioner NSW — 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 NSW Legal Services Commissioner — 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.
Office of the Legal Services Commissioner (NSW) — 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.
Law Society of NSW — 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.
Law Society of NSW — Law Society of NSW publishes “Artificial Intelligence | The Law Society of NSW”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Law Society of NSW — 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.
NSW Bar Association — NSW Bar Association publishes “Artificial intelligence, chatbots and the Bar - Barnews”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
NSW Bar Association — 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.
NSW Bar Association — 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.
NSW Bar Association — NSW Bar Association publishes “How Barristers Can Use ChatGPT in Practice - Barnews”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
NSW Bar Association — NSW Bar Association guidance for barristers on AI language models; Bar News article and notices to the profession on court AI practice notes.
Law Society of New South Wales — 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.
Law Society of New South Wales — 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.
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) — 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.
NSW Industrial Relations Commission — NSW IRC practice note on Gen AI, mirroring the Supreme Court SC Gen 23 approach; IRC witness-statement form 43A contains a Gen AI non-use declaration.
Chief Justice of New South Wales — 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.
Legal Aid NSW — No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:legalaid.nsw.gov.au artificial intelligence
NSW Information and Privacy Commission — 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.
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) — 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).
Legal Aid NSW (panel lawyer policies) — 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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
NSW Bar Association publishes “Artificial intelligence, chatbots and the Bar - Barnews”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
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.
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.
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).
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
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
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
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
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
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
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".
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 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: 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.
This is the catalogue for New South Wales. An instrument appears under “Rules that apply” only when you name the court or tribunal, or say that no court is involved.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
NSW Bar Association publishes “Artificial intelligence, chatbots and the Bar - Barnews”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
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
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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".
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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: 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.
The privacy and freedom-of-information regime for New South Wales, and what the 10 October 2026 check recorded about AI. Confirm the statute, and any commencement proclamation, before reliance.
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.
The note allows some preparatory uses, including chronologies, indexes and summaries, and then sets separate rules for witness evidence, submissions and expert reports. Paragraphs 9A to 24 are the part to read against the document you are preparing.
Witness evidence is not a drafting exercise
The note says generative AI must not be used to alter, embellish, strengthen, dilute or rephrase a witness’s evidence. An affidavit, witness statement or character reference must disclose that generative AI was not used to generate its content, unless leave covers an annexure.
Submissions and experts have their own rules
If generative AI is used in written submissions, the author must verify citations in the body of the document, and that verification must not be done only by a generative tool. An expert report must not be drafted with generative AI without prior leave, and practitioners must draw the note to the expert’s attention.
Jurisdiction
SC Gen 23 is a Supreme Court note. Open the Local Court, District Court, NCAT or Personal Injury Commission direction if that is where the matter sits.
What to open first
For a Supreme Court matter, open Practice Note SC Gen 23 and match the document you are preparing to the paragraph that governs it. For another NSW court, open that court’s note instead.
Review checklist
Identify the NSW court or tribunal and open its generative-AI note.
For Supreme Court work, read paragraphs 9A to 24 of SC Gen 23 against the document.
Do not alter or rephrase a witness’s evidence, and include the disclosure the note requires on affidavits, witness statements and character references.
Verify submission citations in the body of the document, and not only with a generative tool.
Do not draft an expert report with generative AI without prior leave, and tell the expert about the note.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
Closed-source and open-source tools are both covered. A paid legal product is not exempt.
Suppressed material, material under the Harman undertaking, subpoenaed material and material under a statutory publication ban must not be entered unless the conditions in paragraph 9A are met.
Other NSW courts have their own notes. The Local Court note listed by the Law Society commences on a different date from SC Gen 23.
Further check from the 22 September research
The Local Court practice note was issued on 12 December 2025 and commenced on 12 January 2026. It adopts SC Gen 23 in its current form and as later amended, for all Local Court proceedings. The District Court, NCAT and the Personal Injury Commission are not covered by that adoption.
Limits on AI assistance
Do not file, send or rely on generated text until the responsible lawyer has checked it against the instructions and the current source.
Do not put suppressed, privileged, subpoenaed or safety-sensitive information into a public AI tool.
