Check a document prepared for filing against generative-AI expectations
Key facts
- Human involvement
- YellowClose supervision
- How AI is used
- For a pleading, submission, chronology or list of documents, list each generative-AI tool the working papers say was used, what it was used for, and whether the draft already states that. Against the practice note's list, mark whether the working papers record a check that pleaded facts are based on what the party reasonably considers can be proved and that the relief rests on legal principle; that each authority exists and supports the proposition; that evidence cited exists, is or will be in the materials, and is reasonably likely to be admissible; that statements about what the evidence proves are findings reasonably open; that the chronology is accurate; and that a list of documents follows the form and discovery rules the note names. Flag any citation that the working papers do not show as opened. Do not confirm those points. Do not file the document.
- What the lawyer must review
- Make each confirmation and write any disclosure the practice note requires. The note of 16 April 2026 applies to persons who appear before or file documents with that court, including litigants and witnesses and persons producing documents under compulsion. Users are expected to understand the tool's limits. Use must not adversely affect the administration of justice. Where disclosure is required, the person must be able to say what generative AI was used, how, and for what purpose. The note warns that results may include fictitious citations, incorrect law, factual error, and false confirmation of accuracy. The responsible person is expected to have made the confirmations in paragraph 4.5, including that lists of documents conform with the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rules 20.17, 20.14 or 20.15 as applicable. The lawyer also applies the note's separate expectations for documents intended to be evidence, including disclosure in the body of the document at the start where the note requires it. Confirm that this note, rather than another court's note, governs the 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 | For a pleading, submission, chronology or list of documents, list each generative-AI tool the working papers say was used, what it was used for, and whether the draft already states that. Against the practice note's list, mark whether the working papers record a check that pleaded facts are based on what the party reasonably considers can be proved and that the relief rests on legal principle; that each authority exists and supports the proposition; that evidence cited exists, is or will be in the materials, and is reasonably likely to be admissible; that statements about what the evidence proves are findings reasonably open; that the chronology is accurate; and that a list of documents follows the form and discovery rules the note names. Flag any citation that the working papers do not show as opened. Do not confirm those points. Do not file the document. |
| Lawyer | Set the scope, supervise the work closely, verify every part relied on, resolve omissions and exceptions, and approve the exact output. |
Checklist
- Take the tool name and the use from the working papers. Do not guess that a tool was used.
- Flag citations the working papers do not show as opened. Do not look up the citation and declare it real.
- Leave each paragraph 4.5 confirmation for the lawyer.
- Do not file, and do not add a disclosure sentence. The lawyer writes any disclosure.
Sources
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.