Check New South Wales consequential mental harm and economic loss
Key facts
- Human involvement
- YellowClose supervision
- How AI is used
- In a firm-controlled tool, row whether the harm is consequential mental harm as section 27 defines it, and leave the section 33 economic-loss finding blank. Do not apply section 31.
- What the lawyer must review
- Decide whether the harm is consequential, using the section 27 definition.
- Apply section 33 only to consequential mental harm.
- Do not use section 31 here. It is a separate pure-mental-harm check.
Rules that apply
The document starts from the task name. Change it if this piece of work is different.
Who does what
| Role | What they do |
|---|---|
| Assistance | Do not begin AI assistance until the responsible lawyer has defined and confirmed its 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
- 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.
Forms and precedents for this task
| Form or precedent | Kind | AI use | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Psychiatrist's instructions on a recognised psychiatric illness | Letter | AI use Yellow | Letter asking a psychiatrist whether there is a recognised psychiatric illness for a mental harm claim, without asking the psychiatrist to apply the statutory tests. |
Signed-in accounts can read the full text of each one. All precedents.