Set the firm's Victorian protocol for paralegal use of AI
MaintainedLast reviewed
Key facts
- Human involvement
- YellowClose supervision
- How AI is used
- Draft a firm protocol that tells paralegals which closed tool they may use on a personal injury file, what they must not put into a public tool, and what the lawyer still checks.
- What the lawyer must review
- The partner approves the protocol against the current court notes
- Paralegals do not file, and they do not draft affidavits or witness statements
- Re-approve the protocol when either court note changes
Rules that apply
The document starts from the task name. Change it if this piece of work is different.
The work product
Forum. Victoria: a plaintiff firm protocol, written for files that may go to the County Court or the Supreme Court
Produce. A protocol the partner can approve for paralegal use of the firm's tool.
Have ready. The firm's closed-tool contract and privacy settings; Practice Note SC GEN 25; The County Court practice note of 9 June 2026.
Example of the limit. Illustrative example: The draft protocol allows a paralegal to paste discharge summaries into a public chatbot to build a chronology. The partner rejects that sentence. The approved protocol names the firm's closed tool and says the lawyer checks the chronology before it is used.
Stop and hand it back when
- The protocol lets a paralegal file a document or draft an affidavit.
- The court notes cited in the protocol are no longer the notes published by the court.
Sources for this task were checked on 2026-10-23.
Who does what
| Role | What they do |
|---|---|
| Assistance | Draft a firm protocol that tells paralegals which closed tool they may use on a personal injury file, what they must not put into a public tool, and what the lawyer still checks. |
| 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 forbids putting confidential or sensitive client information, including health records, into a public tool, matching the County Court practice note and Practice Note SC GEN 25.
- The protocol records the Law Institute point that confidential client information is not put into an open-source or commercial system without the client's consent.
- The protocol says a paralegal does not draft affidavit, witness-statement or expert-report content, and does not file.
- The partner re-reads the protocol when Practice Note SC GEN 25 or the County Court note of 9 June 2026 is replaced.
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
- Law Institute of Victoria: Ethical and responsible use of artificial intelligence · 2026-10-23
- Supreme Court of Victoria: Practice Note SC GEN 25, use of artificial intelligence by court users · 2026-10-23
- County Court of Victoria: Use of Artificial Intelligence by Court Users Practice Note · 2026-10-23
Practice Note SC GEN 25 says it is not sufficient verification to ask one AI tool to confirm what another AI tool produced.
The County Court note says a lawyer who relies on unverified AI output in a court document may be referred to the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner.