---
title: "Check information before it is entered into a generative tool for a proceeding"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/knowledge-management/check-information-before-it-is-entered-into-a-generative-tool-for-a-proc"
type: "task"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "KM-MA20261022-11"
practice_area: "Knowledge Management"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# Check information before it is entered into a generative tool for a proceeding

> List the information proposed to be entered and whether the file already marks it as subject to a confidentiality, suppression or non-publication order, as privileged, as limited to use for the proceeding in which it…

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/knowledge-management/check-information-before-it-is-entered-into-a-generative-tool-for-a-proc  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-22

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

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Knowledge Management](https://ailawframework.com/practice/knowledge-management.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | List the information proposed to be entered and whether the file already marks it as subject to a confidentiality, suppression or non-publication order, as privileged, as limited to use for the proceeding in which it was obtained, or as otherwise confidential or private. Record whether the tool is described as generally accessible or as ringfenced. Do not enter the information. Do not decide that an obligation does not apply. |
| What the lawyer must review | Decide whether the information may be entered, and on what tool. The practice note says information given to a generally accessible generative tool may become available to other people, and that the user may not know where it is stored, how it is used, or who can see it. Before entry, users consider information subject to confidentiality, suppression or non-publication orders, privileged information, information subject to an implied obligation not to use it for a purpose other than the proceeding in which it was obtained, and other confidential or private information without the consent of the person to whom it is confidential or private. Entry that does not accord with those obligations must not occur. The note also says that entry into a ringfenced or confidential tool may still breach the obligations, including the implied obligation, if outputs are later used for a different purpose. There may be serious consequences even if sharing was not intended. |
| 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: List the information proposed to be entered and whether the file already marks it as subject to a confidentiality, suppression or non-publication order, as privileged, as limited to use for the proceeding in which it was obtained, or as otherwise confidential or private. Record whether the tool is described as generally accessible or as ringfenced. Do not enter the information. Do not decide that an obligation does not apply.
- What the lawyer does: Decide whether the information may be entered, and on what tool. The practice note says information given to a generally accessible generative tool may become available to other people, and that the user may not know where it is stored, how it is used, or who can see it. Before entry, users consider information subject to confidentiality, suppression or non-publication orders, privileged information, information subject to an implied obligation not to use it for a purpose other than the proceeding in which it was obtained, and other confidential or private information without the consent of the person to whom it is confidential or private. Entry that does not accord with those obligations must not occur. The note also says that entry into a ringfenced or confidential tool may still breach the obligations, including the implied obligation, if outputs are later used for a different purpose. There may be serious consequences even if sharing was not intended.
- 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. Use markers already on the file. Do not clear information because it has no marker.
2. Record the tool as generally accessible or ringfenced only if the working papers say which.
3. A ringfenced tool is not a clearance. The lawyer still considers later use of the output.
4. Do not enter the information while the check is being done.

## 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

- [Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Practice Note (GPN-AI), 16 April 2026](https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/law-and-practice/practice-documents/practice-notes/gpn-ai) (checked 2026-10-22)

## Jurisdiction versions

| Jurisdiction | Level |
| --- | --- |
| [United States](https://ailawframework.com/practice/knowledge-management/check-information-before-it-is-entered-into-a-generative-tool-for-a-proc/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.*