--- title: "Client notice and consent: e-discovery, technology-assisted review and AI document review" url: "https://ailawframework.com/precedents/commercial-litigation-and-dispute-resolution/client-notice-ai-tar-discovery" type: "precedent" site: "AI Law Framework" id: "a5-client-notice-ai-tar-discovery" area_id: "A5" kind: "notice" ai_level: "yellow" version: 1 law_stated_as_at: "2026-10-17" --- # Client notice and consent: e-discovery, technology-assisted review and AI document review > A client letter explaining how the firm proposes to use technology-assisted review and AI tools on the client's documents in discovery, the safeguards, validation and cost, with a consent form recording the client's… Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/precedents/commercial-litigation-and-dispute-resolution/client-notice-ai-tar-discovery Law stated as at: 2026-10-17 Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt A client letter explaining how the firm proposes to use technology-assisted review and AI tools on the client's documents in discovery, the safeguards, validation and cost, with a consent form recording the client's informed choice. ## Key facts - Kind: Notice. A formal notice to serve or publish. - Practice area: [Commercial Litigation & Dispute Resolution](https://ailawframework.com/precedents/commercial-litigation-and-dispute-resolution.md) - Jurisdictions: Australia, New South Wales, Victoria, United Kingdom (England and Wales), United States - AI level: Yellow. AI can help in set ways. A lawyer checks specific points before use. - Law stated as at: 2026-10-17 - Status: Maintained. Checked on 2026-10-17 against the 12 authorities it cites, for 5 jurisdictions. ## When to use it Use when a matter will involve electronic discovery or a large document review and the firm proposes to use TAR, predictive coding or generative AI tools. Send it before a discovery plan is agreed with the other side or put to the court. Not needed for a small paper review with no technology beyond searching. ## How AI may be used TAR and AI tools may rank, cluster and classify documents within an agreed and validated protocol, but relevance and privilege calls on borderline documents, the validation results and the list of documents are reviewed and signed off by lawyers. **AI may:** - Rank and cluster documents in a corpus the lawyer has cleared for the tool - Flag likely privileged or sensitive documents for human review - Produce recall and precision estimates from samples that lawyers have coded - Draft a first-pass issues list with document references for lawyer review **AI must not:** - Must not make final privilege decisions or release documents to another party without human review - Must not process the other side's discovery or subpoenaed material in a tool that does not meet the court's conditions - Must not allow the vendor or tool provider to train on, retain or reuse the client's documents - Must not use outputs from this matter for any other matter **The lawyer checks:** - The review protocol is agreed with the other side or approved by the court - Validation samples are adequate and the results are documented - Privileged documents are quality-checked before production - The vendor contract covers data location, access, retention, deletion and no training ## Authorities - [Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37M, 37N](https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A01586/latest/text) - [Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) Div 20.2, rr 20.14, 20.15, 20.17](https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2011L01551/latest/text) - [Federal Court of Australia, Litigation using Electronic Discovery (GPN-TECH guidance)](https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/law-and-practice/practice-documents/practice-notes/gpn-tech/electronic-discovery) - [Federal Court of Australia, Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Practice Note (GPN-AI) (16 April 2026) paras 4.5(f), 4.13–4.15](https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/law-and-practice/practice-documents/practice-notes/gpn-ai) - [Supreme Court of NSW Practice Note SC Gen 23 para 9A](https://supremecourt.nsw.gov.au/documents/Practice-and-Procedure/Practice-Notes/general/current/PN_SC_Gen_23.pdf) - [Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ss 56–58](https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-2005-028) - [Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules 2015 r 9](https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/sl-2015-0244) - [Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) s 174](https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-2014-16a) - [Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) Sch 1, APPs 8 and 11](https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A03712/latest/text) - McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd v Santam Ltd (No 1) [2016] VSC 734 - Pyrrho Investments Ltd v MWB Property Ltd [2016] EWHC 256 (Ch) - Da Silva Moore v Publicis Groupe, 287 FRD 182 (SDNY 2012) ## Official form [Official form](https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/law-and-practice/practice-documents/practice-notes/gpn-tech/electronic-discovery) ## Full text and drafting notes The full text and the drafting notes are not part of this public page. Signed-in firm accounts can read them at https://ailawframework.com/precedents/commercial-litigation-and-dispute-resolution/client-notice-ai-tar-discovery and through the signed-in MCP connector https://ailawframework.com/mcp/firm. *Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*