Set the Queensland supervision protocol for injury-file tools
MaintainedLast reviewed
Key facts
- Human involvement
- YellowClose supervision
- How AI is used
- Draft the firm's supervision protocol for Queensland injury files from the court practice directions and Guidance Statement No. 37. The partner approves the protocol before it is used.
- What the lawyer must review
- The partner approves the protocol before anyone relies on it
- Name the approved tools and keep client material out of a public chatbot
- Record that each later use on a file is checked by the responsible lawyer
Rules that apply
The document starts from the task name. Change it if this piece of work is different.
The work product
Forum. Queensland firms doing plaintiff personal injury work, including matters that may reach the Supreme Court, the District Court or the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission.
Produce. A supervision protocol the partner approves before the firm uses it.
Have ready. The firm's current tool list; The four practice documents linked in the sources; The partner's decision on which tools are approved.
Example of the limit. Illustrative example: The draft protocol would let a tool prepare a filed submission unsupervised. The partner rewrites that line so the practitioner writes anything that is filed, and approves the protocol only after that change.
Stop and hand it back when
- The partner has not approved the protocol.
- The draft would let a tool write a document that is filed or signed.
Sources for this task were checked on 2026-10-23.
Who does what
| Role | What they do |
|---|---|
| Assistance | Draft the firm's supervision protocol for Queensland injury files from the court practice directions and Guidance Statement No. 37. The partner approves the protocol before it is used. |
| Lawyer | Set the scope, supervise the work closely, verify every part relied on, resolve omissions and exceptions, and approve the exact output. |
Checklist
- The protocol names the approved tools and says client and health information stays out of a public chatbot.
- The protocol says the responsible lawyer checks each use on a file. Approval of the protocol is not approval of a later document.
- The protocol sends filed submissions to the lawyer. It cites Practice Direction 5 of 2025, Practice Direction 12 of 2025 and, for the Industrial Court and the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, Practice Direction 1 of 2026.
- The protocol says a notice of claim, a claim form and anything the client or another party signs is completed by the lawyer. The tool does not fill those documents.
Forms and precedents for this task
| Form or precedent | Kind | AI use | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| AI use policy for health information | Policy | AI use Yellow | Firm rule for health information in plaintiff injury work: it stays in a firm-controlled tool, and public tools are not used. |
| Checklist for buying a medical-chronology tool | Checklist | AI use Yellow | Checks before a plaintiff firm approves a tool that will receive medical records: contract, training, security, a privacy impact assessment, and the court conditions for restricted material. |
Signed-in accounts can read the full text of each one. All precedents.
Sources
- Queensland Law Society Guidance Statement No. 37 · 2026-10-23
- Supreme Court of Queensland Practice Direction 5 of 2025 · 2026-10-23
- District Court of Queensland Practice Direction 12 of 2025 · 2026-10-23
- Queensland Industrial Relations Commission Practice Direction 1 of 2026 · 2026-10-23
Guidance Statement No. 37 is guidance, not a statute. It says each discrete piece of work produced with an AI system should be checked. The legal practitioner director or the partners are responsible for the quality of that work, including duties to the court, conflicts, fraud and professional judgement.
The courts page makes the user responsible for accuracy. The practice directions require a named practitioner to verify references and to express a submission in the practitioner's own judgment.