---
title: "Build the issues list for discovery from a prospective respondent"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/commercial-litigation-and-dispute-resolution/build-the-issues-list-for-discovery-from-a-prospective-respondent"
type: "task"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A5-LA20261022-2"
practice_area: "Commercial Litigation & Dispute Resolution"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# Build the issues list for discovery from a prospective respondent

> 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…

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/commercial-litigation-and-dispute-resolution/build-the-issues-list-for-discovery-from-a-prospective-respondent  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-22

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

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Commercial Litigation & Dispute Resolution](https://ailawframework.com/practice/commercial-litigation-and-dispute-resolution.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| 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 / 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: 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 does: 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.
- 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. Check each inquiry said to have been made against a letter, search or file note.
2. Confirm the prospective respondent is identified, not described only as a class of people.
3. Confirm the document list is tied to the decision whether to sue, and does not read like ordinary discovery.

## 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

- [Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), rule 7.23](https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/fcr2011186/s7.23.html) (checked 2026-10-22)

## Jurisdiction versions

| Jurisdiction | Level |
| --- | --- |
| [United States](https://ailawframework.com/practice/commercial-litigation-and-dispute-resolution/build-the-issues-list-for-discovery-from-a-prospective-respondent/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.*