Verify a Western Australian Supreme Court document before it is signed
MaintainedLast reviewed
Key facts
- Human involvement
- RedLawyer-led
- How AI is used
- Extract propositions, citations and omissions to check from a draft court document.
- What the lawyer must review
- Read for missing issues as well as false citations
- Remember the guidelines put omissions on the person who files
Rules that apply
The document starts from the task name. Change it if this piece of work is different.
The work product
Forum. Supreme Court of Western Australia
Produce. A checked draft and a short note of what was verified.
Have ready. The draft; The WA guidelines; The authorities and the facts.
Example of the limit. A submission that never mentions a limitation defence the tool “forgot” is still the practitioner’s document.
Stop and hand it back when
- The matter is not in the Supreme Court and no equivalent guideline has been found.
- Confidential facts have already gone into a public tool.
Sources for this task were checked on 2026-09-22.
Who does what
| Role | What they do |
|---|---|
| Assistance | Supporting preparation only. Extract propositions, citations and omissions to check from a draft court document. Substantive advice, judgement and any restricted content remain with the responsible human. |
| Lawyer | Perform the substantive analysis and decisions. Independently check any permitted supporting work and approve the exact output for its intended use. |
Checklist
- Open the Supreme Court guidelines.
- Verify citations and facts in a trusted source.
- Look for missing issues, not only invented ones.
- Decide whether use must be disclosed so that the Court is not misled.
Sources
Suggested working checks from the linked public sources. Read the source and confirm it applies to this forum and this date. The checks do not approve software or record that the work is done.