---
title: "Review an outgoing document for hidden metadata before it leaves the practice"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/obligations/confidentiality-and-client-information/review-an-outgoing-document-for-hidden-metadata-before-it-leaves-the-pra"
type: "task"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A51-MA20261022-4"
practice_area: "Confidentiality & client information"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# Review an outgoing document for hidden metadata before it leaves the practice

> For each outgoing file the lawyer has listed, record the file type and list metadata that is not on the face of the document: author and location fields, comments, tracked changes, and earlier versions, where the file…

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/obligations/confidentiality-and-client-information/review-an-outgoing-document-for-hidden-metadata-before-it-leaves-the-pra  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-22

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Confidentiality & client information](https://ailawframework.com/obligations/confidentiality-and-client-information.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | For each outgoing file the lawyer has listed, record the file type and list metadata that is not on the face of the document: author and location fields, comments, tracked changes, and earlier versions, where the file format exposes them. Do not delete anything and do not draft a clean copy. |
| What the lawyer must review | The lawyer decides what must be removed and what must be kept. The Queensland Law Society's metadata note says electronic documents carry background data the author may not have meant to share, that sending confidential metadata can breach competence and confidentiality, and that deliberately examining the other side's confidential metadata can breach the conduct rules. There is no single removal method. Converting to PDF does not reliably strip comments or later annotations. In a transaction, if the format hides tracked changes, the sender must list the alterations accurately. In a litigious matter, the electronic version with non-privileged metadata may be the document that has to be disclosed, so a blanket strip can be wrong. |
| Written for / versions | 1 jurisdiction versions below |

## Checking plan

**Source-by-source verification**

Trace relied-on content to independent sources and check for relevant material the output has missed.

- What the AI does: For each outgoing file the lawyer has listed, record the file type and list metadata that is not on the face of the document: author and location fields, comments, tracked changes, and earlier versions, where the file format exposes them. Do not delete anything and do not draft a clean copy.
- What the lawyer does: The lawyer decides what must be removed and what must be kept. The Queensland Law Society's metadata note says electronic documents carry background data the author may not have meant to share, that sending confidential metadata can breach competence and confidentiality, and that deliberately examining the other side's confidential metadata can breach the conduct rules. There is no single removal method. Converting to PDF does not reliably strip comments or later annotations. In a transaction, if the format hides tracked changes, the sender must list the alterations accurately. In a litigious matter, the electronic version with non-privileged metadata may be the document that has to be disclosed, so a blanket strip can be wrong.
- Who reviews: Responsible lawyer with competence in the matter
- Basis: Practical workflow informed by the linked primary sources; the traffic light and working checks are editorial guidance, not a court classification.
- Why: The level reflects what the work is, the consequence of an error, and how much of the output the lawyer must independently re-derive.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Open the native file, not only a PDF export. The note says a PDF conversion often keeps comments and changes.
2. Separate annotations the other side is meant to see from internal or client comments.
3. In a dispute, do not strip metadata until the lawyer has decided it is not part of the document to be disclosed.
4. Do not inspect the other side's file for hidden drafts or authors where that would be a deliberate attempt to obtain confidential or privileged information.

## Notes

- 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.

## Sources

- [Queensland Law Society: Don't let the metadata bite](https://www.qls.com.au/resource-centre/technology-and-innovation/don-t-let-the-metadata-bite) (checked 2026-10-22)

## Jurisdiction versions

| Jurisdiction | Level |
| --- | --- |
| [United States](https://ailawframework.com/obligations/confidentiality-and-client-information/review-an-outgoing-document-for-hidden-metadata-before-it-leaves-the-pra/united-states.md) | Yellow |

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*