Check a public legal tool against the generative-AI limits that apply to court users
Key facts
- Human involvement
- YellowClose supervision
- How AI is used
- From the tool's prompts and sample outputs, list any output a user could copy into a document for a proceeding, and whether the tool tells the user to verify citations and not to put confidential material into an open tool.
- What the lawyer must review
- The lawyer decides whether the tool can be offered to a person who may use an output in a proceeding, and what warning or block the applicable practice note requires.
- Written for / version
- US
Open a jurisdiction version of this task to see which instruments apply: US
Who does what
| Role | What they do |
|---|---|
| Assistance | From the tool's prompts and sample outputs, list any output a user could copy into a document for a proceeding, and whether the tool tells the user to verify citations and not to put confidential material into an open tool. |
| Lawyer | Set the scope, supervise the work closely, verify every part relied on, resolve omissions and exceptions, and approve the exact output. |
Checklist
- Read the current practice note for each court in which users of the tool are likely to appear.
- Check that the tool does not invite a user to generate the content of evidentiary material.
- Confirm any verification statement the tool offers is not itself produced only by the tool.
- Record the warning or block the lawyer requires before the tool is offered.
Sources
- Supreme Court of NSW, Practice Note SC Gen 23 · 2026-10-22
- Supreme Court of Victoria, Practice Note SC GEN 25 · 2026-10-22
- Federal Court of Australia, GPN-AI · 2026-10-22
These are suggested working checks. Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts; the checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.