The legal industry has Australia's most developed AI rulebook. Courts across NSW, Victoria, Queensland and the federal jurisdiction have issued binding practice notes, the profession's regulators have set common principles, and lawyers have already been sanctioned for filing unverified AI output. The rules differ by jurisdiction, so the operative practice note needs checking before every filing.
Supreme Court of NSWFederal CourtVictorian courtsVCATQueensland courtsLaw societiesVLSB+C
Last reviewed October 2026. Every entry links to its official source.
The rules
What applies today
Australia's most prescriptive court rule on AI. Generative AI must not be used to create the content of affidavits, witness statements or character references, and those documents must positively disclose that AI was not used. Suppressed, subpoenaed or Harman-protected material must not be entered into AI tools except under strict conditions. Where AI helps with written submissions, the author must verify every citation against a primary source, and must not verify using another AI tool. Expert reports require prior leave of the court.
Who this affects: All proceedings in the Supreme Court of NSW. Similar rules have propagated to the NSW District Court, Local Court, NCAT and the Personal Injury Commission.
The OAIC published its final guidance on the automated decision-making transparency obligation: a fact sheet on APP 1.7 to 1.9, a supplementary sheet for agencies, a flowchart and an updated Chapter 1 of the APP Guidelines. Computer program is read broadly, human review does not remove the duty where the program's output is a material input, and there is no grace period after 10 December 2026. Law firms using AI in client intake, conflict checks or pricing are caught like any other APP entity.
The Fair Work Commission published its final guidance note on generative AI in Commission cases, effective 20 October 2026, requiring disclosure, personal verification and, for lawyers and paid agents, hyperlinks to all cited case law.
Parliament appointed a Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence to report on, among other things, whether existing laws have gaps warranting reform and how AI interacts with copyright, reporting by 30 November 2026.
The County Court of Victoria published practice note PNCCV 1-2026 on AI, completing Victoria's shift from soft guidelines to formal practice notes across its higher courts.
The Federal Circuit and Family Court issued Practice Direction PD-AI on the use of AI by all court users, including certification requirements for private experts.
The Supreme Court of Victoria issued Practice Note SC GEN 25 and judicial guidelines on AI, replacing its 2024 guidelines. Judicial officers may not use generative AI for decision-making.
The Federal Court published its generative AI practice note (GPN-AI) after a year-long consultation, requiring verification of AI-assisted documents and flagging when disclosure of AI use may be required.
The Victorian Law Reform Commission tabled Australia's first law reform report on AI in courts and tribunals, with 30 recommendations including a ban on AI in judicial decision-making.
Queensland Law Society and counterpart law societies released a joint AI selection and use checklist for firms procuring AI tools, followed by a template client warning on AI and confidential information in April.
Check the operative practice note before every filing. Requirements differ between NSW, Victoria, Queensland and the Federal Court, so keep a matter-level checklist by jurisdiction. See the rule
2
Never put confidential, privileged, suppressed or subpoenaed material into public AI tools. This is a near-absolute prohibition in NSW and a common principle of the regulators' joint statement. See the rule
3
Verify every citation, quote and reference personally against a primary source. Never verify one AI's output with another AI tool. See the rule
4
Keep AI away from evidence: no generative AI in affidavits, witness statements or character references in NSW, and evidence everywhere must reflect the witness's actual knowledge and words. See the rule
5
Keep records of which document portions were AI-assisted, the tool used and how output was verified. Courts can require disclosure. See the rule
6
Adopt a written AI use policy covering approved tools, prohibited tasks and supervision, mapped to Solicitors' Conduct Rules 4, 9, 17, 19 and 37. See the rule
7
Bill honestly for AI-assisted work: costs must reflect actual work performed, not the time AI saved. See the rule
Straight answers
Questions people ask
Which Australian courts have AI practice notes in 2026?
The Supreme Court of NSW (Practice Note SC Gen 23, in force since 3 February 2025), the Supreme Court of Victoria (Practice Note SC GEN 25, May 2026, mirrored by the County Court's PNCCV 1-2026 in June 2026), the Federal Court (GPN-AI, published 16 April 2026) and the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Practice Direction PD-AI, 29 May 2026). Queensland's Supreme, District and Planning and Environment Courts use practice directions on the accuracy of references instead. The NSW rules have also propagated to the District Court, Local Court, NCAT and the Personal Injury Commission.
What does Practice Note SC Gen 25 require?
SC GEN 25 is the Supreme Court of Victoria's practice note on the use of AI by court users, issued 14 May 2026 and replacing the court's 2024 guidelines. Court users remain responsible for the content of documents whether or not AI was used, must be able to identify which portions were AI-produced and explain how output was verified, and cannot use one AI tool to check another. Inaccurate filings risk costs orders and practitioner sanctions. Companion judicial guidelines prohibit generative AI in judicial decision-making.
Can lawyers use ChatGPT or other generative AI for court documents in Australia?
Yes, with limits that differ by jurisdiction. In NSW, generative AI must not be used to create the content of affidavits, witness statements or character references, and those documents must positively state that AI was not used. Everywhere, the author must personally verify every citation against a primary source and must not verify with another AI tool. Confidential, privileged, suppressed or subpoenaed material must not be entered into public AI tools. Courts can require disclosure of AI use.
Has anyone in Australia been sanctioned for AI-generated citations?
Yes. In Valu v Minister for Immigration (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 95, a solicitor who filed submissions with seventeen non-existent cases generated by ChatGPT was referred to the NSW Legal Services Commissioner. In August 2025 the Victorian Legal Services Board varied a solicitor's practising certificate after AI-generated citations were filed in a family law matter, barring the solicitor from practising as a principal and imposing two years of supervised practice.
Do the Fair Work Commission's AI rules apply to lawyers?
Yes. The FWC's final guidance note on generative AI in Commission cases, published 24 August 2026 and effective 20 October 2026, requires anyone who uses generative AI to prepare a document for a Commission case to disclose that use and how, to check that every cited fact, case, statute and quote exists and supports the position, and to state that this was done. Lawyers and paid agents must also hyperlink all cited case law.
Does a law firm need a written AI policy?
The Law Society of NSW's solicitor's guide (updated January 2026) maps generative AI risks to the Solicitors' Conduct Rules on competence (Rule 4), confidentiality (Rule 9), independence (Rule 17), duty to the court (Rule 19) and supervision (Rule 37), and includes pre-adoption and post-adoption checklists. A written policy covering approved tools, prohibited tasks and supervision is the practical way to evidence those duties, and the Queensland Law Society and counterpart societies published a joint AI selection and use checklist in February 2026.
Certification against Australia's AI Ethics Principles is independent proof that your business uses AI responsibly, before a client, regulator or tender asks.
