Build the issues list for discovery from a prospective respondent
Key facts
- Human involvement
- YellowClose supervision
- How AI is used
- Against rule 7.23, list the prospective respondent as identified, the relief the lawyer is considering, the inquiries already made and what they produced, and the documents said to be directly relevant to whether a right to relief exists. Mark which of paragraphs (1)(a), (1)(b) and (1)(c) has no fact yet. Do not write the application.
- What the lawyer must review
- The lawyer decides whether the three beliefs and the inquiries in rule 7.23(1) can be stated, and writes the application. The lawyer keeps the documents sought to those directly relevant to the decision whether to start a proceeding.
- 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 | Against rule 7.23, list the prospective respondent as identified, the relief the lawyer is considering, the inquiries already made and what they produced, and the documents said to be directly relevant to whether a right to relief exists. Mark which of paragraphs (1)(a), (1)(b) and (1)(c) has no fact yet. Do not write the application. |
| Lawyer | Set the scope, supervise the work closely, verify every part relied on, resolve omissions and exceptions, and approve the exact output. |
Checklist
- Check each inquiry said to have been made against a letter, search or file note.
- Confirm the prospective respondent is identified, not described only as a class of people.
- Confirm the document list is tied to the decision whether to sue, and does not read like ordinary discovery.
Sources
- Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), rule 7.23 · 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.