Supreme Court of Western Australia guidelines for the use of generative AI in that Court’s proceedings. Recorded 10 Oct 2026: Artificial Intelligence practice direction: Consultation note. District Court of Western Australia: No AI guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026. The Supreme Court of Western Australia guidelines do not say they apply to this court. Magistrates Court of Western Australia: No AI guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026. The Supreme Court of Western Australia guidelines do not say they apply to this court.
The Supreme Court of Western Australia has published guidelines for generative AI in its proceedings. They apply to lawyers, self-represented people and expert witnesses. Generated content must be verified by a human who takes responsibility for it. Telling the Court that a tool prepared the document is not an answer to an error.
The guidelines apply to lawyers, self-represented people and expert witnesses in Supreme Court proceedings. Generated content relied on in the Court must be verified by a human who takes legal responsibility. Telling the Court that a tool prepared the document is not an answer to an error.
Supreme Court of Western Australia — Consultation on a binding AI practice direction for the Supreme Court of WA, focused on generative AI (not e-discovery tools). Separate from the existing Guidelines already in the database.
Supreme Court of Western Australia — Guidelines for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence, issued by the Supreme Court of Western Australia and incorporated as Practice Direction 9.21 of the Consolidated Practice Directions on 10 December 2025. The Court's What's New page announced them on 20 November 2025. The standalone PDF has no date on its face. The guidelines are not a ban. They apply to lawyers, non-lawyers, self-represented litigants and expert witnesses in civil and criminal proceedings. Generative artificial intelligence predicts words and is not a substitute for research or oversight. Public tools may store and reuse prompts. The listed risks include outdated or incomplete material, fabricated citations, the wrong jurisdiction and bias. Content that is relied on must be verified by a human who takes legal responsibility. Saying that a document was prepared with artificial intelligence is not an answer to errors. The practitioner who files or signs is personally responsible. Information obtained from other parties must not be used for a collateral purpose without leave or until it is in evidence. Confidential, suppressed or privileged information should not be entered into a public or unsecured tool. Affidavits and witness statements must be in the witness's own words, and artificial intelligence must not substitute the witness's voice. Expert reports must comply with the Harmonised Expert Witness Code in Practice Direction 4.5.2.1. A person must not mislead the Court or another party about how a document was produced, and must disclose the use when the Court directs or where it is otherwise necessary or appropriate. The text is guidance, published as Practice Direction 9.21.
State Administrative Tribunal (WA) — No WA SAT AI practice note found as of 10 Oct 2026 (Practice Notes list and homepage checked; no AI mentions). Supreme Court of WA Gen AI guidelines exist separately.
Legal Practice Board of WA — News item dated 6 December 2024. The Legal Practice Board of Western Australia, with the Law Society of New South Wales and the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner, announced the joint statement. The page says the statement applies to solicitors in NSW and to solicitors and barristers in Victoria and WA, and is based on the ethical conduct rules. It says the ethical standards in the Legal Profession Uniform Law and conduct rules apply equally to the use of AI. Duties named on this page: maintain client confidentiality; provide independent advice; be honest and deliver legal services competently and diligently; charge costs that are fair, reasonable and proportionate. Lawyers using AI should consider clear risk-based policies to minimise data and security breaches; limit AI to lower-risk tasks, with the page's example of an initial draft of an email, and not use it for higher-risk tasks, with the page's example of translating legal advice into another language; and be transparent, disclosing to clients and the court when and how the technology was used where necessary or mandated by the rules of court. The full statement is linked from the page. This row is the Board's news item, not a substitute for that statement.
Legal Practice Board of WA — Legal Practice Board of WA publishes “LPBWA - Resources - Legal Practice Board of Western Australia”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Law Society of Western Australia — Law Society of Western Australia publishes “What is AI? — Law Society of Western Australia”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Law Society of Western Australia — Law Society of Western Australia publishes “Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the Future of Law”. AI can perform complex tasks that once required human input. One part of this article was written by a lawyer and the other part generated by ChatGPT. Can you tell the difference? Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Law Society of Western Australia — Law Society of Western Australia publishes “Copyright and generative artificial intelligence”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
WA Bar Association — No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:wabar.asn.au artificial intelligence
Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission — WAIRC news item. The practice notes were published in the Western Australian Industrial Gazette on 22 April 2026 and take effect on 6 May 2026. Practice Note 1 of 2026 concerns use of artificial intelligence. The practice note PDF is already in the catalogue.
Legal Aid WA — Legal Aid WA publishes “Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Privacy | Legal Aid WA”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Legal Aid WA — Legal Aid WA publishes “April 2026 Generative Artificial Intelligence Practice Note (GPN-AI)”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Legal Aid WA — Legal Aid WA publishes “Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia releases Practice Direction on the use of Artificial Intelligence”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Government of Western Australia — Privacy and Responsible Information Sharing Act 2024 (WA), assent 6 December 2024. Privacy and Responsible Information Sharing Act 2024 Commencement Proclamation 2026 (SL 2026/128, published 24 Jun 2026). 1 July 2025: Information Commissioner Act 2024 and PRIS Act Part 2 Div 12, Part 3 Div 8, Parts 4-5 (officeholders: Information Commissioner, Privacy Deputy Commissioner, Chief Data Officer) 1 July 2026: Operative privacy (IPPs) and responsible information sharing provisions in force for WA public entities “New privacy and data sharing laws commence on 1 July 2026.” 1 January 2027: Mandatory reporting of serious data breaches “From 1 January 2027, government agencies will be required to report serious data breaches to the Information Commissioner and to the people affected.” Freedom of Information Act 1992 (WA). WA's first public-sector privacy statute. It also covers automated decision-making. Legal Aid WA has published an AI and privacy explainer for lawyers. Proclamation SL 2026/128 was published on 24 June 2026. Officeholder provisions commenced on 1 July 2025. Operative privacy and responsible information sharing commenced on 1 July 2026. Mandatory serious-breach reporting commences on 1 January 2027. Open the proclamation before reliance.
No published profile is limited to Western Australia. These are the first tools in catalogue order that record an Australian presence or an Australian hosting claim. A listing is not approval to use one.
not stated; note refers to 31 March 2025 for submissions
Consultation on a binding AI practice direction for the Supreme Court of WA, focused on generative AI (not e-discovery tools). Separate from the existing Guidelines already in the database.
Cites the AIJA guide AI Decision Making and the Courts (2022, rev. Dec 2023).
No new AI guidance found: WA Bar AssociationNoticeSecondary sourceUnverified dateNo new AI guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026. This is a search result, not a decision that the body will not publish guidance.No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:wabar.asn.au artificial intelligence
WA Bar Association
checked 10 Oct 2026; site search found nothing new
No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:wabar.asn.au artificial intelligence
Site search recorded on 2026-10-10: site:wabar.asn.au artificial intelligence.
Announced on the Court's What's New page on 20 November 2025. Inserted as Practice Direction 9.21 of the Consolidated Practice Directions on 10 December 2025. The standalone PDF has no date on its face. · Effective 2025-12-10
Guidelines for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence, issued by the Supreme Court of Western Australia and incorporated as Practice Direction 9.21 of the Consolidated Practice Directions on 10 December 2025. The Court's What's New page announced them on 20 November 2025. The standalone PDF has no date on its face. The guidelines are not a ban. They apply to lawyers, non-lawyers, self-represented litigants and expert witnesses in civil and criminal proceedings. Generative artificial intelligence predicts words and is not a substitute for research or oversight. Public tools may store and reuse prompts. The listed risks include outdated or incomplete material, fabricated citations, the wrong jurisdiction and bias. Content that is relied on must be verified by a human who takes legal responsibility. Saying that a document was prepared with artificial intelligence is not an answer to errors. The practitioner who files or signs is personally responsible. Information obtained from other parties must not be used for a collateral purpose without leave or until it is in evidence. Confidential, suppressed or privileged information should not be entered into a public or unsecured tool. Affidavits and witness statements must be in the witness's own words, and artificial intelligence must not substitute the witness's voice. Expert reports must comply with the Harmonised Expert Witness Code in Practice Direction 4.5.2.1. A person must not mislead the Court or another party about how a document was produced, and must disclose the use when the Court directs or where it is otherwise necessary or appropriate. The text is guidance, published as Practice Direction 9.21.
Practice Direction 9.21. The text is guidelines, not a ban, for civil and criminal proceedings.
Relied-on content must be verified by a human who takes legal responsibility.
Affidavits and witness statements must be in the witness's own words. Artificial intelligence must not substitute the witness's voice.
Disclose the use when the Court directs or where it is otherwise necessary or appropriate.
News item dated 6 December 2024. The Legal Practice Board of Western Australia, with the Law Society of New South Wales and the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner, announced the joint statement. The page says the statement applies to solicitors in NSW and to solicitors and barristers in Victoria and WA, and is based on the ethical conduct rules. It says the ethical standards in the Legal Profession Uniform Law and conduct rules apply equally to the use of AI. Duties named on this page: maintain client confidentiality; provide independent advice; be honest and deliver legal services competently and diligently; charge costs that are fair, reasonable and proportionate. Lawyers using AI should consider clear risk-based policies to minimise data and security breaches; limit AI to lower-risk tasks, with the page's example of an initial draft of an email, and not use it for higher-risk tasks, with the page's example of translating legal advice into another language; and be transparent, disclosing to clients and the court when and how the technology was used where necessary or mandated by the rules of court. The full statement is linked from the page. This row is the Board's news item, not a substitute for that statement.
Dated 6 December 2024. Applies to solicitors in NSW and to solicitors and barristers in Victoria and WA.
Existing Uniform Law duties apply to AI use: confidentiality, independent advice, honesty and competence, and fair and proportionate costs.
The page's lower-risk example is an initial email draft. Its higher-risk example is translating legal advice.
Disclose AI use to the client and the court where necessary or where court rules require it.
Legal Practice Board of WA publishes “LPBWA - Resources - Legal Practice Board of Western Australia”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
What is AI? — Law Society of Western AustraliaLaw society guidanceSecondary sourceUnverified dateThe 10 October 2026 check marked this find as low confidence. Read the page before treating it as the body’s position.Secondary. Guides lawyers. Not a court practice note.
Law Society of Western Australia
Not stated
Law Society of Western Australia publishes “What is AI? — Law Society of Western Australia”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Law Society of Western Australia publishes “Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the Future of Law”. AI can perform complex tasks that once required human input. One part of this article was written by a lawyer and the other part generated by ChatGPT. Can you tell the difference? Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
AI can perform complex tasks that once required human input. One part of this article was written by a lawyer and the other part generated by ChatGPT. Can you tell the difference?
Copyright and generative artificial intelligenceLaw society guidanceSecondary sourceUnverified dateThe 10 October 2026 check marked this find as low confidence. Read the page before treating it as the body’s position.Secondary. Guides lawyers. Not a court practice note.
Law Society of Western Australia
1 May 2012 · Effective 2012-05-01
Law Society of Western Australia publishes “Copyright and generative artificial intelligence”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Privacy | Legal Aid WAGovernment guidanceSecondary sourceUnverified dateThe 10 October 2026 check marked this find as low confidence. Read the page before treating it as the body’s position.Secondary. Scope not stated in the stored source.
Legal Aid WA
Not stated
Legal Aid WA publishes “Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Privacy | Legal Aid WA”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Legal Aid WA publishes “April 2026 Generative Artificial Intelligence Practice Note (GPN-AI)”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Legal Aid WA publishes “Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia releases Practice Direction on the use of Artificial Intelligence”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission
2026-05-06
WAIRC news item. The practice notes were published in the Western Australian Industrial Gazette on 22 April 2026 and take effect on 6 May 2026. Practice Note 1 of 2026 concerns use of artificial intelligence. The practice note PDF is already in the catalogue.
Announces Practice Note 1 of 2026 - Use of artificial intelligence
Published in (2026) 106 WAIG 690-693 on 22 April 2026
Each practice note takes effect on 6 May 2026, 14 days after gazette publication
Practice Note 2 of 2026 (delivery of reserved decisions) replaces Practice Note 1 of 2021
No WA SAT AI practice note found as of 10 Oct 2026 (Practice Notes list and homepage checked; no AI mentions). Supreme Court of WA Gen AI guidelines exist separately.
This is the catalogue for Western Australia. An instrument appears under “Rules that apply” only when you name the court or tribunal, or say that no court is involved.
not stated; note refers to 31 March 2025 for submissions
Consultation on a binding AI practice direction for the Supreme Court of WA, focused on generative AI (not e-discovery tools). Separate from the existing Guidelines already in the database.
Cites the AIJA guide AI Decision Making and the Courts (2022, rev. Dec 2023).
Announced on the Court's What's New page on 20 November 2025. Inserted as Practice Direction 9.21 of the Consolidated Practice Directions on 10 December 2025. The standalone PDF has no date on its face. · Effective 2025-12-10
Guidelines for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence, issued by the Supreme Court of Western Australia and incorporated as Practice Direction 9.21 of the Consolidated Practice Directions on 10 December 2025. The Court's What's New page announced them on 20 November 2025. The standalone PDF has no date on its face. The guidelines are not a ban. They apply to lawyers, non-lawyers, self-represented litigants and expert witnesses in civil and criminal proceedings. Generative artificial intelligence predicts words and is not a substitute for research or oversight. Public tools may store and reuse prompts. The listed risks include outdated or incomplete material, fabricated citations, the wrong jurisdiction and bias. Content that is relied on must be verified by a human who takes legal responsibility. Saying that a document was prepared with artificial intelligence is not an answer to errors. The practitioner who files or signs is personally responsible. Information obtained from other parties must not be used for a collateral purpose without leave or until it is in evidence. Confidential, suppressed or privileged information should not be entered into a public or unsecured tool. Affidavits and witness statements must be in the witness's own words, and artificial intelligence must not substitute the witness's voice. Expert reports must comply with the Harmonised Expert Witness Code in Practice Direction 4.5.2.1. A person must not mislead the Court or another party about how a document was produced, and must disclose the use when the Court directs or where it is otherwise necessary or appropriate. The text is guidance, published as Practice Direction 9.21.
Practice Direction 9.21. The text is guidelines, not a ban, for civil and criminal proceedings.
Relied-on content must be verified by a human who takes legal responsibility.
Affidavits and witness statements must be in the witness's own words. Artificial intelligence must not substitute the witness's voice.
Disclose the use when the Court directs or where it is otherwise necessary or appropriate.
Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission
2026-05-06
WAIRC news item. The practice notes were published in the Western Australian Industrial Gazette on 22 April 2026 and take effect on 6 May 2026. Practice Note 1 of 2026 concerns use of artificial intelligence. The practice note PDF is already in the catalogue.
Announces Practice Note 1 of 2026 - Use of artificial intelligence
Published in (2026) 106 WAIG 690-693 on 22 April 2026
Each practice note takes effect on 6 May 2026, 14 days after gazette publication
Practice Note 2 of 2026 (delivery of reserved decisions) replaces Practice Note 1 of 2021
What is AI? — Law Society of Western AustraliaLaw society guidanceSecondary sourceUnverified dateThe 10 October 2026 check marked this find as low confidence. Read the page before treating it as the body’s position.Secondary. Guides lawyers. Not a court practice note.
Law Society of Western Australia
Not stated
Law Society of Western Australia publishes “What is AI? — Law Society of Western Australia”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Law Society of Western Australia publishes “Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the Future of Law”. AI can perform complex tasks that once required human input. One part of this article was written by a lawyer and the other part generated by ChatGPT. Can you tell the difference? Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
AI can perform complex tasks that once required human input. One part of this article was written by a lawyer and the other part generated by ChatGPT. Can you tell the difference?
Copyright and generative artificial intelligenceLaw society guidanceSecondary sourceUnverified dateThe 10 October 2026 check marked this find as low confidence. Read the page before treating it as the body’s position.Secondary. Guides lawyers. Not a court practice note.
Law Society of Western Australia
1 May 2012 · Effective 2012-05-01
Law Society of Western Australia publishes “Copyright and generative artificial intelligence”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
News item dated 6 December 2024. The Legal Practice Board of Western Australia, with the Law Society of New South Wales and the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner, announced the joint statement. The page says the statement applies to solicitors in NSW and to solicitors and barristers in Victoria and WA, and is based on the ethical conduct rules. It says the ethical standards in the Legal Profession Uniform Law and conduct rules apply equally to the use of AI. Duties named on this page: maintain client confidentiality; provide independent advice; be honest and deliver legal services competently and diligently; charge costs that are fair, reasonable and proportionate. Lawyers using AI should consider clear risk-based policies to minimise data and security breaches; limit AI to lower-risk tasks, with the page's example of an initial draft of an email, and not use it for higher-risk tasks, with the page's example of translating legal advice into another language; and be transparent, disclosing to clients and the court when and how the technology was used where necessary or mandated by the rules of court. The full statement is linked from the page. This row is the Board's news item, not a substitute for that statement.
Dated 6 December 2024. Applies to solicitors in NSW and to solicitors and barristers in Victoria and WA.
Existing Uniform Law duties apply to AI use: confidentiality, independent advice, honesty and competence, and fair and proportionate costs.
The page's lower-risk example is an initial email draft. Its higher-risk example is translating legal advice.
Disclose AI use to the client and the court where necessary or where court rules require it.
Legal Practice Board of WA publishes “LPBWA - Resources - Legal Practice Board of Western Australia”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Privacy | Legal Aid WAGovernment guidanceSecondary sourceUnverified dateThe 10 October 2026 check marked this find as low confidence. Read the page before treating it as the body’s position.Secondary. Scope not stated in the stored source.
Legal Aid WA
Not stated
Legal Aid WA publishes “Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Privacy | Legal Aid WA”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Legal Aid WA publishes “April 2026 Generative Artificial Intelligence Practice Note (GPN-AI)”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
Legal Aid WA publishes “Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia releases Practice Direction on the use of Artificial Intelligence”. Checked 2026-10-10. Read the linked page before relying on it.
No new AI guidance found: WA Bar AssociationNoticeSecondary sourceUnverified dateNo new AI guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026. This is a search result, not a decision that the body will not publish guidance.No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:wabar.asn.au artificial intelligence
WA Bar Association
checked 10 Oct 2026; site search found nothing new
No new AI guidance found (beyond items already captured) as of 10 Oct 2026; site search: site:wabar.asn.au artificial intelligence
Site search recorded on 2026-10-10: site:wabar.asn.au artificial intelligence.
No WA SAT AI practice note found as of 10 Oct 2026 (Practice Notes list and homepage checked; no AI mentions). Supreme Court of WA Gen AI guidelines exist separately.
The privacy and freedom-of-information regime for Western Australia, and what the 10 October 2026 check recorded about AI. Confirm the statute, and any commencement proclamation, before reliance.
Privacy and Responsible Information Sharing Act 2024 (WA), assent 6 December 2024. Privacy and Responsible Information Sharing Act 2024 Commencement Proclamation 2026 (SL 2026/128, published 24 Jun 2026). 1 July 2025: Information Commissioner Act 2024 and PRIS Act Part 2 Div 12, Part 3 Div 8, Parts 4-5 (officeholders: Information Commissioner, Privacy Deputy Commissioner, Chief Data Officer) 1 July 2026: Operative privacy (IPPs) and responsible information sharing provisions in force for WA public entities “New privacy and data sharing laws commence on 1 July 2026.” 1 January 2027: Mandatory reporting of serious data breaches “From 1 January 2027, government agencies will be required to report serious data breaches to the Information Commissioner and to the people affected.” Freedom of Information Act 1992 (WA). WA's first public-sector privacy statute. It also covers automated decision-making. Legal Aid WA has published an AI and privacy explainer for lawyers. Proclamation SL 2026/128 was published on 24 June 2026. Officeholder provisions commenced on 1 July 2025. Operative privacy and responsible information sharing commenced on 1 July 2026. Mandatory serious-breach reporting commences on 1 January 2027. Open the proclamation before reliance.
Proclamation SL 2026/128 was published on 24 June 2026. Officeholder provisions commenced on 1 July 2025. Operative privacy and responsible information sharing commenced on 1 July 2026. Mandatory serious-breach reporting commences on 1 January 2027. Open the proclamation before reliance.
Privacy and Responsible Information Sharing Act 2024 (WA) (IPPs; commencing in stages)
FOI: Freedom of Information Act 1992 (WA)
1 July 2025: Information Commissioner Act 2024 and PRIS Act Part 2 Div 12, Part 3 Div 8, Parts 4-5 (officeholders: Information Commissioner, Privacy Deputy Commissioner, Chief Data Officer)
1 July 2026: Operative privacy (IPPs) and responsible information sharing provisions in force for WA public entities “New privacy and data sharing laws commence on 1 July 2026.”
1 January 2027: Mandatory reporting of serious data breaches “From 1 January 2027, government agencies will be required to report serious data breaches to the Information Commissioner and to the people affected.”
Legal Aid WA: AI and privacy — https://www.legalaid.wa.gov.au/lawyers/law-hub/artificial-intelligence-ai-and-privacy
WA legislation (PRIS Act 2024) — https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/
The guidelines say AI-generated content relied on in the Supreme Court must be verified by a human who takes legal responsibility. Practitioners who sign or file a document are responsible for its accuracy and its omissions.
Public tools are a confidentiality problem
Confidential, suppressed or privileged information should not be entered into a public or unsecured tool. The guidelines also remind users of the obligation not to use information obtained from other parties for a collateral purpose.
Affidavits and experts stay in a human voice
Affidavits and witness statements must be in the witness’s own words. Expert reports must comply with the Harmonised Expert Witness Code of Conduct. Generated text is not a substitute for the expert’s own opinion, and the expert should consider what disclosure is required.
Jurisdiction
These guidelines are for the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The Law Society of Western Australia maintains its own court-information page. Confirm whether another WA court has adopted the same text before you assume it has. District Court of Western Australia: No AI guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026. The Supreme Court of Western Australia guidelines do not say they apply to this court. Magistrates Court of Western Australia: No AI guidance found as of 10 Oct 2026. The Supreme Court of Western Australia guidelines do not say they apply to this court.
What to open first
For a Supreme Court of Western Australia matter, open the Court’s generative AI guidelines and decide who will verify the document before anyone files it.
Review checklist
Open the Supreme Court guidelines before any WA Supreme Court document is prepared with a tool.
Verify the content, including omissions, before the document is signed or filed.
Keep confidential, suppressed and privileged material out of public tools.
Draft affidavits in the witness’s words and expert reports under the Harmonised Code.
Disclose use when the Court directs it, or where it is otherwise necessary so that nobody is misled about how the document was produced.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
“The tool wrote it” is the excuse the guidelines say will not do.
A tool trained on other countries’ procedure will offer the wrong originating process. The guidelines name jurisdiction error as a risk.
Do not assume the Magistrates Court or the State Administrative Tribunal has the same guideline. Check.
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.
Confirm the commencement position, the named month and the section 20 class Approve the claim that is given Do not let the checking list decide those points
