Check incoming evidentiary documents against the generative-AI practice note
Key facts
- Human involvement
- RedLawyer-led
- How AI is used
- From each incoming evidentiary document, expert report, submission and image, audio or video the lawyer marks for checking, extract whether a generative-AI disclosure is present, quote it, and list the court's stated rule that the lawyer has identified for that forum. Do not write an objection or a letter.
- What the lawyer must review
- The lawyer decides which practice note applies, whether the document fails it, and what to do about it. In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Practice Note SC GEN 23 says generative AI must not be used to generate the content of affidavits, witness statements, character references or other material intended to reflect a witness's evidence or opinion, or other material tendered in evidence or used in cross-examination. An affidavit, a witness statement or a character reference must disclose that generative AI was not used in generating its content. Generative AI must not be used to draft or prepare the content of an expert report without the Court's prior leave. The Federal Court practice note GPN-AI requires disclosure where generative AI summarised or analysed information a witness relies on, created images, video or sound presented to the Court, or was used in a way that might affect admissibility. Victoria's SC GEN 25 requires particular caution and meaningful human verification, not the New South Wales prohibition. Queensland's courts page sends the user to court-specific practice directions rather than one prohibition.
- 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 | Supporting preparation only. From each incoming evidentiary document, expert report, submission and image, audio or video the lawyer marks for checking, extract whether a generative-AI disclosure is present, quote it, and list the court's stated rule that the lawyer has identified for that forum. Do not write an objection or a letter. The tool writes nothing into the document. Substantive advice, judgement and any restricted content remain with the responsible human. |
| Lawyer | Perform the substantive analysis and decisions. Independently check any permitted supporting work and approve the exact output for its intended use. |
Checklist
- Match the forum to the practice note that was opened, and do not apply the New South Wales prohibition in a Federal Court or Victorian proceeding.
- Quote any disclosure. Do not treat a missing disclosure as a breach until the lawyer has applied the paragraph that requires it.
- For an expert report in a New South Wales Supreme Court matter, check whether leave was obtained and whether the report identifies the program, the parts prepared with it, and the record required by paragraph 22.
- Confirm that material subject to a suppression order, a subpoena or the Harman undertaking was not placed into a generative-AI tool except within the conditions the applicable note states.
Sources
- Supreme Court of New South Wales, Practice Note SC GEN 23, Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI), issued 28 January 2025 · 2026-10-22
- Federal Court of Australia, Generative Artificial Intelligence Practice Note (GPN-AI), 16 April 2026 · 2026-10-22
- Supreme Court of Victoria, Practice Note SC GEN 25, The use of Artificial Intelligence by Court users, issued 14 May 2026 · 2026-10-22
- Queensland Courts, Using Generative 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.