Queensland Courts guidance on generative AI, Supreme Court Practice Direction 5 of 2025 on accuracy of references, and Queensland Law Society Guidance Statement No. 37. Recorded 10 Oct 2026: The use of generative AI: guidelines for judicial officers.
Queensland Courts publish a page on using generative AI and point lawyers to Supreme Court Practice Direction 5 of 2025 on the accuracy of references in submissions, with companion directions in the District Court, the Planning and Environment Court, the Land Court and QCAT. The Queensland Law Society’s Guidance Statement No. 37 is the professional counterpoint: know whether the tool will keep client information confidential before you use it.
Queensland Courts publish a page on using generative AI and point lawyers to the accuracy directions. Supreme Court Practice Direction 5 of 2025 requires the responsible practitioner to be named at the end of written submissions and to verify the references. It does not require a statement that generative AI was used. Before a submission is filed, open the direction for that court.
Supreme Court of Queensland — 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.
Queensland Courts — Guidelines for Queensland judicial officers; stress that advocates are personally responsible for accuracy and that judicial officers maintain security.
Queensland Courts — Guidance for self-represented litigants; warns that AI use can inadvertently breach suppression orders or disclose personal information.
Supreme Court of Queensland — Amendment adds a requirement that where an expert used Gen AI to formulate or express an opinion, the report must address that use.
Queensland Industrial Relations Commission — 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.
Industrial Court of Queensland / QIRC — 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.
District Court of Queensland — 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.
Planning and Environment Court of Queensland — 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.
Land Court of Queensland — 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.
Queensland Courts — 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.
Queensland Courts publish a page on using generative AI and point lawyers to the accuracy directions. Supreme Court Practice Direction 5 of 2025 requires the responsible practitioner to be named at the end of written submissions and to verify the references. It does not require a statement that generative AI was used. Before a submission is filed, open the direction for that court.
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal — 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.
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal — 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.
Mental Health Review Tribunal (Queensland) — No AI guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026 (homepage checked; site search returned nothing). QCAT handles guardianship and has AI resources.
Office of the Information Commissioner Queensland — 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.
Office of the Information Commissioner Queensland — 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.
Queensland Law Society — 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.
Queensland Law Society — Queensland Law Society publishes “AI selection and use checklist - Queensland Law Society”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Queensland Law Society — 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.
Bar Association of Queensland — 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 — 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.
Bar Association of Queensland — Bar Association of Queensland publishes “NAVIGATING THE AI ABYSS: ETHICAL CHALLENGES”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Bar Association of Queensland — 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.
Queensland Law Society — 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.
Queensland Law Society — 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.
Queensland Law Society — QLS announcement (6 June 2024) of Guidance Statement No 37, described as the first guidance statement on AI by an Australian law society.
Queensland Law Society — 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.
Queensland Law Society — 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.
Queensland Industrial Relations Commission — 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.
Legal Services Commission Queensland — No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:lsc.qld.gov.au artificial intelligence
Legal Aid Queensland — No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:legalaid.qld.gov.au artificial intelligence
Office of the Information Commissioner Queensland — 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.
Legal Services Commission (Queensland) — 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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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 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: 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Queensland Law Society publishes “AI selection and use checklist - Queensland Law Society”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
This is the catalogue for Queensland. An instrument appears under “Rules that apply” only when you name the court or tribunal, or say that no court is involved.
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.
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.
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
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).
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
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
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.
Queensland Law Society publishes “AI selection and use checklist - Queensland Law Society”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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: 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The privacy and freedom-of-information regime for Queensland, and what the 10 October 2026 check recorded about AI. Confirm the statute, and any commencement proclamation, before reliance.
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.
The courts page is organised around the accuracy directions. Before a submission is filed, open the direction for that court and check every reference against a source you trust.
Ask the confidentiality questions first
Guidance Statement No. 37 tells practitioners to be very hesitant if the provider’s terms do not clearly say how confidential data is stored, reused and shared. Anonymising names is a possible reduction of risk, not a full answer.
Non-lawyer guidelines are not the lawyer’s standard
The courts also publish guidelines for people without lawyers. A solicitor’s obligation is the practice direction plus the Society’s guidance, not the self-represented leaflet alone.
Jurisdiction
Supreme Court Practice Direction 5 of 2025 does not automatically govern QCAT or the Planning and Environment Court. Those bodies have published their own accuracy directions. Open the one named on the file.
What to open first
Start with the court named on the file, then with Guidance Statement No. 37 if client information will be uploaded.
Review checklist
Open the Queensland Courts AI page and the accuracy direction for the court you are in.
Verify every reference in the submission. Do not rely on the tool that produced the reference.
Work through the Society’s confidentiality questions before client material is uploaded.
Treat QCAT Practice Direction 10 of 2025 as the tribunal’s own accuracy direction, not as optional reading.
Apply the Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules as in force for Queensland practising certificates.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
A citation that “looks Australian” may be invented. The accuracy directions exist because that has happened.
QCAT has its own 2025 direction on accuracy of references. Supreme Court PD 5 is not a substitute.
If the tool’s terms do not answer the Society’s confidentiality questions, do not upload the file and hope.
Further check from the 22 September research
Chief Justice Bowskill issued Practice Direction 5 of 2025 on 24 September 2025. Written submissions must name the individual practitioner who takes responsibility. By allowing their name to appear, that person informs the Court they have verified the accuracy and relevance of references to legislation, authorities and other sources, and that the document reflects their own professional judgement. A submission that cites material which does not exist may be referred to the Legal Services Commissioner, and the practitioner may have to show cause on costs. The direction is for the Supreme Court. QCAT and other Queensland courts have published their own accuracy directions.
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.
