Generative AI Practice Notes in Australian Courts

What the Practice Notes Require

Court AI rules leave responsibility for filed material with the people who prepare and rely on it. Verify every citation against its actual source, protect confidential information and retain human control over the final document.

A practice note is a formal court document directing or guiding procedure in that court. Read its operative paragraphs to identify requirements. A guideline usually explains responsible use, while a notice to the profession may announce a change or explain the court’s expectations. The document’s title alone does not establish whether it imposes an obligation.

Start with the court’s official practice-notes index and select the court, division or list handling the proceeding. Look for the AI direction alongside the general procedural notes. Read its scope and any replacement notice, then check case-specific orders for additional requirements.

Generative AI creates content in response to instructions. Ordinary formatting and substantive evidence generation can attract different rules. Record the task performed, not simply that someone used an AI tool.

A case citation needs two checks: the authority exists and it supports the proposition attributed to it. Read the relevant judgment passage. Asking a chatbot to confirm its own citation does not establish either fact.

Supreme Court of NSW Practice Note SC Gen 23

SC Gen 23, in its amended 2025 version, distinguishes preparatory work from generating evidence. Generative AI must not generate or rephrase a witness’s evidence in affidavits, witness statements or character references. Preparatory work is permitted subject to the note’s other requirements.

Those documents must disclose that AI did not generate their content. The disclosure also covers exhibits or annexures prepared for the evidence, subject to leave. Existing documents have a separate exception. Exceptional leave can permit AI-generated exhibits or annexures.

Expert-report content normally requires prior leave. The application identifies the proposed use, tool and version, privacy arrangements, benefit and documents supplied. The report must identify AI-assisted parts and retain the prescribed usage record. Specific professional-negligence and work-injury reports have a different leave pathway under paragraph 23.

AI-assisted submissions require verification of authorities and evidence references in the document. Confidential or compulsorily obtained material is subject to paragraph 9A’s controlled-environment and use restrictions. Tell instructed experts about the note before they start.

Federal Court, Victoria and Queensland

Federal Court

The Federal Court has a formal Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Practice Note, GPN-AI, issued in 2026. Its accompanying notice announces that practice note. The earlier notice to the profession is no longer the sole source of the court’s AI guidance.

GPN-AI applies to everyone appearing before or filing documents with the court, including witnesses. Affidavits must reflect the witness’s own recollection, knowledge or experience. An expert report must contain the expert’s own opinion and reasoning.

Disclosure is required when AI summarises or analyses information a witness relies on for a factual statement or opinion. Other uses affecting admissibility or the court’s use of evidence also require disclosure. Put the disclosure at the start of the document and explain where and how AI was used. The court can require further disclosure.

Victoria

Victoria’s SC Gen 25, issued in 2026, replaces its 2024 responsible-use guidelines. It applies to all court users and permits AI-assisted document preparation subject to its requirements.

Content requires verification with meaningful human control. Court users must be able to identify AI-produced passages and explain their verification. Another AI tool cannot confirm generated content, although checking original source material housed within an AI tool is permitted.

Witness evidence must reflect the person’s own knowledge and words. Expert reports remain subject to the applicable code or practice note. Confidential or sensitive information must stay out of public AI tools. Closed tools require assessment of their contractual protections and privacy settings.

Queensland

Queensland’s Supreme Court Practice Direction 5 of 2025 addresses accurate references in submissions. Written submissions must name the individual responsible at the end. A law firm’s name alone is insufficient where that person is a practitioner.

Practitioners must verify the accuracy and relevance of authorities and other sources in written and oral submissions. The wording must reflect their professional judgment. Naming the responsible practitioner on written submissions communicates that the obligation has been performed.

The revised 2025 guidelines for non-lawyers require users to check information and keep private, privileged or suppressed material out of chatbots. Other Queensland courts have their own directions, so identify the court and document involved before applying the Supreme Court’s submission requirements.

A Compliance Checklist for Matter Teams

Put an AI-use record alongside the drafting file so the person settling the document can identify what happened before filing.

1. Identify the court and document type. Read the applicable practice note and any case-specific orders before choosing an AI task.
2. Record the tool and version, purpose, inputs and affected passages. Preserve prompts and outputs where the court requires them.
3. Keep client information out of public tools. Assess confidentiality, privilege and restrictions on documents obtained through compulsory processes before supplying them elsewhere.
4. Verify legal authorities from their original sources. Check quotations and the proposition each citation supports, then record who completed that check.
5. Resolve evidence restrictions before finalising the document. Confirm any required leave and use the court’s required disclosure wording or placement.
6. Have the responsible lawyer or expert settle the final document. Keep the verification record with the version that is signed or filed.

For financial schedules, connect each figure to its source statement page. Check amounts, debit or credit direction and currency, then reconcile totals to the underlying entries. Record whether AI extracted transactions, classified them or contributed to the reasoning in an expert report.

In a hypothetical matter, AI extracts a statement ledger and an accountant uses it to explain disputed transfers. Record both stages of the workflow. The court’s rules for an evidentiary schedule and an expert opinion determine the filing steps, even where the ledger itself is accurate.

The expert witness code of conduct explains the expert’s duties beyond AI use. For the separate question of available legal AI tools, assess the tool’s job alongside the court’s restrictions. Complete the leave and disclosure decision before the witness signs or the report is filed.