---
title: "Check a draft joint position paper for the first case management hearing"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/class-actions-representative-proceedings/check-a-draft-joint-position-paper-for-the-first-case-management-hearing"
type: "task"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A7-LA20261022-12"
practice_area: "Class Actions / Representative Proceedings"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# Check a draft joint position paper for the first case management hearing

> Compare the draft with paragraphs 7.1 and 7.3 of the Class Actions Practice Note. Record the hearing date and whether it falls within four weeks of filing.…

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/class-actions-representative-proceedings/check-a-draft-joint-position-paper-for-the-first-case-management-hearing  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-22

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

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Class Actions / Representative Proceedings](https://ailawframework.com/practice/class-actions-representative-proceedings.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | Compare the draft with paragraphs 7.1 and 7.3 of the Class Actions Practice Note. Record the hearing date and whether it falls within four weeks of filing. Count the sentences in each point and mark any point over three sentences. Against paragraph 7.8, mark each topic as addressed or not addressed: the description of class members, the defence timetable, pleading issues, discovery, the funding basis and any order that would impose an obligation on class members, any competing class action, security for costs, how the issues may be managed, the interlocutory timetable, a further case management hearing, and the competing-class-action matters in paragraph 8.2 if the parties can address them. Do not write the parties' positions. |
| What the lawyer must review | The lawyer settles each position, keeps each point to no more than three sentences, and decides which paragraph 7.8 topics are ready to address. The lawyer files the paper. |
| 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: Compare the draft with paragraphs 7.1 and 7.3 of the Class Actions Practice Note. Record the hearing date and whether it falls within four weeks of filing. Count the sentences in each point and mark any point over three sentences. Against paragraph 7.8, mark each topic as addressed or not addressed: the description of class members, the defence timetable, pleading issues, discovery, the funding basis and any order that would impose an obligation on class members, any competing class action, security for costs, how the issues may be managed, the interlocutory timetable, a further case management hearing, and the competing-class-action matters in paragraph 8.2 if the parties can address them. Do not write the parties' positions.
- What the lawyer does: The lawyer settles each position, keeps each point to no more than three sentences, and decides which paragraph 7.8 topics are ready to address. The lawyer files the paper.
- 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 the sentences in each point and mark any point over three.
2. Check the hearing date against the application, and record whether it is inside four weeks of filing.
3. Mark each paragraph 7.8 topic as addressed or not addressed.
4. Confirm the tool has not written a party's position.

## 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

- [Class Actions Practice Note (GPN-CA)](https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/law-and-practice/practice-documents/practice-notes/gpn-ca) (checked 2026-10-22)

## Jurisdiction versions

| Jurisdiction | Level |
| --- | --- |
| [United States](https://ailawframework.com/practice/class-actions-representative-proceedings/check-a-draft-joint-position-paper-for-the-first-case-management-hearing/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.*