Check a practitioner's AI use against Opinion 512 and EOIR
Key facts
- Human involvement
- YellowClose supervision
- How AI is used
- Record whether the file contains a standing order on generative AI, and whether the draft was checked by the person who will sign it. Write no filing.
- What the lawyer must review
- This is not an Australian migration-agent code. Formal Opinion 512 addresses competence, confidentiality, and supervision when a lawyer uses a generative tool. Policy Memorandum 25-40, 8 August 2025, says EOIR has no blanket prohibition and no mandatory disclosure, and that an individual judge or court may adopt a standing order. Section 1003.102(c) disciplines a knowing or reckless false statement of material fact or law. The lawyer decides what is filed.
- Written for / version
- United States versionUS
Who does what
| Role | What they do |
|---|---|
| Assistance | Potential support includes preparing preliminary structure or wording and identifying points for review. Confirm the tool’s capability and permitted scope. |
| Lawyer | Set the scope, supervise the work closely, verify every part relied on, resolve omissions and exceptions, and approve the exact output. |
Checklist
- Check the current court or regulator requirements, prescribed form and attachments for the intended document and filing.
- Confirm that the actual tool, feature and processing terms permit use of this information, including access, retention, training and disclosure conditions.
- Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
- Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.