---
title: "Check the preconditions for proving documents by a summary"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/obligations/incoming-evidence-deepfakes-and-synthetic-documents/check-the-preconditions-for-proving-documents-by-a-summary"
type: "task"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A44-FL20261022-9"
practice_area: "Incoming evidence — deepfakes & synthetic documents"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# Check the preconditions for proving documents by a summary

> List the documents the lawyer has marked as a set, and record only these facts: how many documents are in the set;…

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/obligations/incoming-evidence-deepfakes-and-synthetic-documents/check-the-preconditions-for-proving-documents-by-a-summary  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-22

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

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Incoming evidence — deepfakes & synthetic documents](https://ailawframework.com/obligations/incoming-evidence-deepfakes-and-synthetic-documents.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | List the documents the lawyer has marked as a set, and record only these facts: how many documents are in the set; whether anyone has said the set cannot conveniently be examined because of its volume or its complexity; whether a summary has been served on each other party; whether that summary discloses the name and address of the person who prepared it; and whether each other party has had a reasonable opportunity to examine or copy the documents. Do not write the summary, and do not say that a direction should be sought. |
| What the lawyer must review | The lawyer decides whether to apply for a direction under section 50 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). The court may direct that evidence of the contents of two or more documents be given as a summary if satisfied it would not otherwise be possible conveniently to examine the evidence because of volume or complexity. The court may make that direction only if the summary served discloses the preparer's name and address and each other party has had a reasonable opportunity to examine or copy the documents. The lawyer writes any summary that is served. Subsection (3), which says the opinion rule does not apply to evidence adduced in accordance with a direction, is used only after a direction has been made. |
| 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: List the documents the lawyer has marked as a set, and record only these facts: how many documents are in the set; whether anyone has said the set cannot conveniently be examined because of its volume or its complexity; whether a summary has been served on each other party; whether that summary discloses the name and address of the person who prepared it; and whether each other party has had a reasonable opportunity to examine or copy the documents. Do not write the summary, and do not say that a direction should be sought.
- What the lawyer does: The lawyer decides whether to apply for a direction under section 50 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). The court may direct that evidence of the contents of two or more documents be given as a summary if satisfied it would not otherwise be possible conveniently to examine the evidence because of volume or complexity. The court may make that direction only if the summary served discloses the preparer's name and address and each other party has had a reasonable opportunity to examine or copy the documents. The lawyer writes any summary that is served. Subsection (3), which says the opinion rule does not apply to evidence adduced in accordance with a direction, is used only after a direction has been made.
- 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. Count only documents the lawyer has put in the set.
2. Record service of the preparer's name and address as a fact. Do not draft the summary to supply them.
3. Leave the convenience question and the decision to apply for a direction to the lawyer.
4. Do not treat subsection (3) as permission to put opinion into a summary before the court has made a direction.

## 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

- [Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 50, proof of voluminous or complex documents](https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ea199580/s50.html) (checked 2026-10-22)

## Jurisdiction versions

| Jurisdiction | Level |
| --- | --- |
| [United States](https://ailawframework.com/obligations/incoming-evidence-deepfakes-and-synthetic-documents/check-the-preconditions-for-proving-documents-by-a-summary/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.*