Practice area
Administrative & Public LawAdministrative and public law
Define the intended work in Administrative & Public Law, confirm the applicable requirements and select a task to plan the necessary review.
Key facts
- Tasks covered
- 34
- Tasks with a step-by-step checklist
- 15
- Local differences
- 3 jurisdictions where this area changes
Jurisdiction
Tasks
GreenLawyer reviewYellowClose supervisionRedLawyer-led
| Task | How AI is used | Human involvement | What the lawyer must review |
|---|---|---|---|
| Build a review-rights and time-limit table from the decision letter | Extract the decision type, date of notice and candidate review paths into a table against the enabling provisions the lawyer has named. | RedLawyer-led |
|
| Identify the New Zealand tribunal or High Court review path | Extract the decision-maker, the date of decision and the statute named on the decision. | RedLawyer-led |
|
| Draft a judicial-review grounds outline from the decision and the record | Produce a structured outline of candidate grounds (jurisdiction, fairness, relevant considerations, no evidence) with transcript or record references. | RedLawyer-led |
|
| Draft judicial-review grounds for the Federal Court or FCFCOA | Outline candidate grounds with record references. Meet GPN-AI disclosure before filing; keep confidential, privileged or suppressed material out of the tool. | RedLawyer-led |
|
| Draft a statement-of-reasons request and a reasons-deficiency table | Draft the request letter, then list missing findings, unaddressed mandatory considerations and unexplained steps from the reasons that come back. | YellowClose supervision |
|
| Draft a freedom-of-information request and a review application | Produce a first-draft request, internal-review or commissioner-review application, and a table of claimed exemptions mapped to the Act the lawyer has named. | YellowClose supervision |
|
| Draft an FOI request and review application under the FOI Act 1982 (Cth) or the state Act | Draft a request, internal-review or Information Commissioner review application, and tabulate claimed exemptions under the FOI Act 1982 (Cth) or the named state Act. | YellowClose supervision |
|
| Build a lawful-decision checklist for an agency client | From the empowering provision and the proposed process, list power, mandatory considerations, consultation steps and record-keeping still required. | RedLawyer-led | Re-derive power and fairness from the current statute; this advice will be acted on |
| Build a tribunal hearing chronology and document list | Summarise the evidence bundle into a chronology, extract key facts from departmental records and list inconsistencies across statements. | YellowClose supervision |
|
| Build a delegated-legislation validity checklist | From the instrument and the Act the lawyer named, list empowering provision, intra vires, procedure and subject-matter questions, mapping the instrument to that Act. | YellowClose supervision |
|
| Build a delegated-legislation validity checklist under the Legislation Act 2003 | From the instrument and empowering Act named, list intra vires, subject-matter, procedure and Henry VIII questions, mapped against the Legislation Act 2003 (Cth). | YellowClose supervision |
|
| Map procedural-fairness steps for a proposed decision | From the decision type and the affected interest, list notice, hearing, bias and disclosure steps already taken and still required. | RedLawyer-led |
|
| Build an AI-use gap table for an agency client | Map the agency's described AI uses to the government AI policy headings the lawyer has listed, and mark missing impact assessments and human-review paths. | YellowClose supervision |
|
| Draft a state, territorial or local tribunal application from the decision papers | Produce a first-draft application, chronology and submissions outline from the decision and the tribunal form the lawyer has named. | YellowClose supervision |
|
| Draft a VCAT, NCAT, QCAT or SAT application from the decision papers | Draft an application, chronology and submissions outline from the decision and tribunal form named; meet the tribunal's AI disclosure practice note before filing. | YellowClose supervision |
|
| Verify and disclose generative AI in a tribunal document | Extract citations, chronology rows and any translated passages from a draft tribunal document into a checking list. | RedLawyer-led |
|
| Verify and disclose generative AI in an Administrative Review Tribunal document | Extract citations, chronology rows and any translated passages from a draft Tribunal document into a checking list. | RedLawyer-led |
|
| Draft a notice of objection to production or a public-interest-immunity schedule | From the notice to produce and the documents the agency has gathered, the tool indexes each document by date, author, recipient and file reference as they appear on its face, groups the documents under the ground the lawyer has already marked for each, and flags documents already produced or published elsewhere in the proceeding as waiver risks. It then compares the descriptions the lawyer has written against the source documents and against the schedule the court or tribunal requires, and reports any description that reproduces the protected content: the tool writes no part of the objection or the schedule — no draft, no candidate grounds, no document descriptions, and nothing in any supporting affidavit or ministerial certificate. | RedLawyer-led | The lawyer settles the grounds document by document — legal professional privilege, public interest immunity, a statutory secrecy provision, or the terms of the notice itself — and checks that each description they have written identifies the document well enough for the objection to be ruled on without disclosing the content or the substance of the protected communication. Confirm against the source documents that no listed document has already been produced or published in a way that waives the claim, that the schedule answers the form the court or tribunal requires, and that the objection is signed and served within the time the notice allows; where the claim is verified by affidavit or by a ministerial or officer's certificate, that evidence is the deponent's own and is taken from them in the usual way. |
| Build the schedule of documents for an information-access decision | Draft the schedule rows from the lawyer's marked-up document set: number, date, author and recipient, a neutral description and the folio range, carrying the recorded decision and the provision across for each item without altering them. List any document with no recorded decision, no folio range, or a description that repeats content the lawyer has marked as exempt. | GreenLawyer review | The lawyer confirms the schedule matches the documents actually within scope, that each description discloses nothing exempt, and that the decision and the provision recorded against every row are their own. |
| Run the third-party consultation for an information-access request | Draft each consultation letter from the validated template using the document details the lawyer has selected, and maintain the register of who was consulted, the date sent, the response date and whether a submission in support of an exemption contention was received. Flag any draft letter that reproduces content the lawyer has marked exempt, or that would identify the applicant. | YellowClose supervision | The lawyer decides who must be consulted and whether consultation is reasonably practicable in the time available, confirms the applicant's identity is not disclosed without the applicant's agreement, and confirms the recalculated due date before the letters go out. |
| Work up the public interest test for a conditionally exempt document | Organise the statutory factors for and against disclosure into a table against the documents and passages the lawyer has marked, extract the material the lawyer has identified as bearing on each factor with exact references, and list factors asserted with nothing on the file behind them. Write nothing into the statement of reasons, do not weigh the factors and do not state a conclusion. | RedLawyer-led | The decision-maker performs the balance, decides which factors are open on the evidence and writes the reasons; the lawyer checks that no class claim and no irrelevant factor has been carried into the decision. |
| Prepare the notice of decision and reasons on an access request | Work with the lawyer to draft the notice from the validated template and the regulator's published checklist, taking the decision on each document and the findings from the decision-maker and keeping every finding tied to the document or evidence it came from. Flag any exemption claimed in the schedule that the draft does not explain, and any statement of review rights or timing that does not match the file. | YellowClose supervision | The decision-maker adopts the findings as their own; the lawyer checks that each exemption is explained document by document rather than by class, that the reasons themselves disclose no exempt content, and that the review rights, fees and time limits stated are correct for the scheme. |
| Prepare a refusal-to-deal consultation notice and the processing estimate behind it | Draft the consultation notice from the validated template so that it states the practical refusal reason relied on, names the contact officer and the consultation period, sets out the estimated time for each processing step from the lawyer's sample-search figures, and puts the narrowing suggestions the lawyer has settled on. | GreenLawyer review | The lawyer owns the estimate and the sample it rests on, confirms the contact arrangements and consultation period meet the section's requirements, and checks that the suggestions offered would actually remove the practical refusal reason. |
| Check the release copy against the decision before documents leave the agency | Compare the release copy against the schedule and the notice of decision and list every discrepancy: a deletion claimed but not applied, a deletion applied but not claimed, a missing or extra page, a folio range that does not match, a document released that the decision refused. Do not edit, redact or regenerate any part of the release copy. | RedLawyer-led | The lawyer resolves every discrepancy against the source document, confirms each deletion is irreversible in the format actually being sent, and authorises both the release and any publication. |
| Trace the delegation and authorisation behind a decision | Draft the trace from the instruments and position records the lawyer supplies: the conferring provision, each delegation or authorisation with its commencement and any repeal or replacement, the version in force on the decision date, and the position held by the person who decided. Flag any link with no instrument, an instrument made after the decision, and any decision made at a level the instrument does not cover. | YellowClose supervision | The lawyer verifies each instrument against the register or the agency's records, confirms the point-in-time version, and decides whether an express delegation, a statutory authorisation or the Carltona principle is what supports the decision. |
| Assemble the decision-maker's lodgement bundle for a tribunal review | Draft the index and apply the pagination across the document set the decision-maker has identified as relevant, in the order and form the tribunal's practice direction requires, and maintain the register of documents that come into the decision-maker's possession after lodgement, with the date each was received and the date it must be lodged by. | GreenLawyer review | The lawyer decides what is relevant to the review, settles any claim that material should be withheld from a party, confirms which jurisdictional-area practice direction applies, and signs the lodgement. |
| Draft the statement of reasons for a reviewable decision | Work with the lawyer to draft the reasons from the decision-maker's findings and the material actually before them, keeping each finding tied to the evidence it came from, and list any finding in the draft with nothing on the file behind it and any material on the file the draft does not deal with. | YellowClose supervision | The decision-maker adopts the findings and the reasoning as their own; the lawyer checks that every material question of fact is addressed, that no finding rests on material the decision-maker did not have, and that nothing has been added after the event to improve the decision. |
| Respond to an Ombudsman investigation and proposed report | Work with the lawyer to draft the response and build the corrections table: each statement in the proposed report, the agency material that bears on it, and the correction sought with its file reference. Flag every assertion in the report that the file does not address. | YellowClose supervision | The lawyer confirms each correction against the source record, decides what is put and what is conceded, checks that the response discloses nothing it should not, and settles the agency's position on each recommendation. |
| Advise an agency on AI use under the DTA policy v2.0 | Map proposed uses to the mandatory requirements. | YellowClose supervision | Confirm requirements and accountable officials. |
| Check an ART submission against the Generative AI Practice Direction checklist | Complete the ART checklist item by item. | YellowClose supervision | Verify and be ready to explain tool use. |
| Draft an RTI/FOI external-review submission for an applicant | Organise the decision, exemptions claimed and reasons into a cited submission outline. | YellowClose supervision | OIC Qld asks applicants to verify AI-produced content; check every exemption against the Act. |
| Assess an agency's use of generative AI under state information-privacy law | Build a gap table against the agency's AI policy and privacy principles. | YellowClose supervision | Lawyer confirms the governing statute (PPIPA, PDPA Vic, IP Act Qld). |
| Prepare a tribunal submission compliant with the ART Gen AI practice direction | Organise the submission and the AI-use disclosure required by the ART direction. | YellowClose supervision | Verify every citation; follow ART PD (Aug 2026). |
| Advise an agency on generative AI in decision-making | Map the decision process against rules barring AI in reasons and outcomes. | YellowClose supervision | Lawyer confirms legality of delegation and procedural fairness. |
| Triage self-represented applicants' AI-drafted review applications | Summarise grounds and flag apparent fabricated authorities. | RedLawyer-led | Officer checks every authority. |
| Summarise a VLRC or law-reform paper for an agency client | Produce an executive summary with paragraph pinpoints. | GreenLawyer review | Check pinpoints against the report. |
| Draft an AI transparency statement for a Commonwealth agency | Draft from the agency's AI use register. | YellowClose supervision | Check DTA policy requirements. |
| Analyse automated decision-making in a government decision for review grounds | Map automated steps to legality, procedural fairness and reasons duties. | YellowClose supervision | Lawyer gives the advice. |
| Prepare an ART application outline from the decision and reasons | Draft grounds from the reasons. | YellowClose supervision | Lawyer settles; check ART AI practice requirements. |
| Summarise agency AI transparency statements for a client | Compare published AI statements. | GreenLawyer review | Verify the current statements. |
Firm-wide obligations
| Obligation | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Trust accounting & handling client money | Checks that apply across files. |
| Costs, billing & litigation funding | Checks that apply across files. |
| Client-facing & access-to-justice AI tools | Checks that apply across files. |
| Incoming evidence — deepfakes & synthetic documents | Checks that apply across files. |
| AI decision systems | Checks that apply across files. |
| Confidentiality & client information | Checks that apply across files. |
| AML/CTF — the practice as a reporting entity | Checks that apply across files. |
What changes in Australia
| Topic | What changes |
|---|---|
| Scope | Judicial review, merits review before the Administrative Review Tribunal, FOI, constitutional challenges and advice to agencies on lawful decision-making. |
| Where it goes wrong | Work is deadline-driven and turns on exact statutory terms and moving ART and Federal Court authority, the conditions where invented authority is most likely. |
| Decided cases | Valu [2025] FedCFamC2G 94 & 95, JNE24 [2025] FedCFamC2G 1314, Pasuengos [2025] FedCFamC2G 2129, Luck [2025] FCAFC 26 and Re Dayal [2025] led to disciplinary or costs outcomes. |
| Recent change | The ART replaced the AAT (14 October 2024); a new on-the-papers migration regime began 18 May 2026; the GPN-AI Practice Note took effect 16 April 2026. |
What changes in New Zealand
| Topic | What changes |
|---|---|
| Merits review | No Administrative Review Tribunal. Use the tribunal the statute names (IPT, Taxation Review Authority and others in the Courts of New Zealand guidelines). |
| Judicial review | In the High Court. |
| Information and rights | Official Information Act 1982, not FOI. Rights arguments may engage the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. |
| Government AI use | Public-service guidance on digital.govt.nz, which the Law Society points to. |
- Official Information Act 1982 · 2026-09-23
- New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 · 2026-09-23
- High Court Rules 2016 · 2026-09-23
- Courts of New Zealand: GenAI guidelines — Lawyers (7 December 2023) · 2026-09-23
- NZLS: Generative AI guidance for lawyers (March 2024) · 2026-09-23
- Ministry of Justice: Immigration and Protection Tribunal · 2026-09-23
What changes in United States
Known here as: Administrative and public law
| Topic | What changes |
|---|---|
| What changes | Federal: the Administrative Procedure Act and the agency statute, not ART merits review. State APAs govern state agencies. |
| Records | FOIA and state public-records laws replace FOI Acts. |
| AI rules | Rule 11 and standing orders apply in federal court. Agency manuals, such as EOIR PM 25-40, may add AI guidance. |
- ABA Formal Opinion 512, Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools (29 July 2024) · 2026-09-23
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 · 2026-09-23
- EOIR Policy Memorandum PM 25-40 (8 August 2025) · 2026-09-23
- 5 U.S.C. Chapter 5 (Administrative Procedure Act) · 2026-09-23
- 5 U.S.C. Chapter 7: judicial review · 2026-09-23
- FOIA.gov: Freedom of Information Act · 2026-09-23
Precedents for this area
- Freedom of information access application (Commonwealth, with NSW and NZ variants and review follow-ups) (Letter, AI use Yellow). A scoped request for documents under the FOI Act 1982 (Cth) that meets s 15, heads off practical refusal and charges, and sets up internal and Information Commissioner review, with NSW GIPA and NZ OIA variants.
- Request for a statement of reasons for an administrative decision, with reasons-deficiency table (Letter, AI use Yellow). A request for written reasons under the ART Act 2024 (Cth) s 268 or the ADJR Act s 13, with a table for testing the reasons that come back against s 25D and the review grounds.
- Request for reasons and review of an automated or AI-assisted government decision (Letter, AI use Yellow). A letter to a Commonwealth agency asking whether and how an automated system or AI shaped a decision, who actually decided, and under what authority, while seeking reasons, preservation of system records and review.
- Application to the Administrative Review Tribunal for review: completion guide (including the Generative AI Practice Direction) (Form, AI use Yellow). How to choose and complete the right ART application form: reviewable decision, time limits, fees, what goes in each part, attachments, and what the Tribunal's 2026 Generative AI Practice Direction requires of documents you lodge.
- Complaint to the Commonwealth Ombudsman: preparation guide and complaint summary (Form, AI use Yellow). How to decide whether the Commonwealth Ombudsman is the right body, what to do first, and how to prepare a clear, evidence-backed complaint for the online form, with a model complaint summary to adapt.
- Agency AI transparency statement under the DTA standard: advice note and template for government clients (Policy, AI use Yellow). An advice note and template for a Commonwealth agency's public AI transparency statement that covers each minimum element of the DTA standard and links it to the agency's use case register, privacy policy and review processes.
All precedents for Administrative & Public Law. Signed-in accounts can read the full text.