AI rules for Australian lawyers: SC Gen 23 and other court practice notes

Australian lawyers can use generative AI, but most major courts now have rules about how. NSW Practice Note SC Gen 23 is the best known and one of the most prescriptive. Since 2025 the Federal Court, the Federal Circuit and Family Court, the Victorian Supreme and County Courts, the Queensland Supreme Court, and the WA and SA courts have all published their own practice notes or guidelines, and they differ on the details that matter: what you must disclose, what you must verify and what you can't put into an AI tool.

This guide summarises each instrument, the professional duties underneath them, and a checklist for firms. It reflects the position as at 9 October 2026. Practice notes change, so check the court's own page before you file.

AI practice notes in Australia at a glance#

As at 30 September 2026, the UNSW Centre for the Future of the Legal Profession's tracker listed no court-specific AI instrument for Tasmania, the ACT or the Northern Territory. Check those courts' websites directly.

NSW Practice Note SC Gen 23 explained#

SC Gen 23 applies to all proceedings in the NSW Supreme Court and to both closed-source and open-source AI. The parts practitioners ask about most:

• What it doesn't cover. Tools that only correct spelling or grammar, transcribe, translate or format, search engines that return lists of websites, and dedicated legal research software that searches legislation, judgments and legal texts (para 6).
• What AI may be used for. Subject to the restricted-material rule, chronologies, indexes and witness lists; briefs and draft Crown Case Statements; summarising or reviewing documents and transcripts; and written submissions (para 9B).
• Evidence. AI must not generate the content of affidavits, witness statements or character references, or rephrase a witness's evidence. Work that is merely preparatory to drafting is allowed (paras 10 to 13).
• Submissions. The author must verify in the body of the submissions that every citation exists, is accurate and is relevant, and that check can't be done solely with AI (paras 16 and 17).
• Experts. Leave is needed before AI is used to prepare any part of an expert report. If leave is granted, the expert must disclose the program and version used and keep a record of how it was used, such as the prompts (paras 20 to 22).

Can lawyers use ChatGPT?#

Yes, for the right tasks and with the right settings. The answer turns on confidentiality and verification, not the brand of tool.

The Law Society of NSW, the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia and the Victorian Legal Services Board + Commissioner issued a joint statement in December 2024. It says solicitors cannot safely enter confidential, sensitive or privileged client information into public AI chatbots like ChatGPT, and that if they use commercial AI tools with client information they must review the contractual terms to make sure it will be kept secure. The SA courts' guidelines make the same point: files uploaded to a standard ChatGPT account are not private and may be used to improve OpenAI's models, though an enterprise-level account may offer a more secure environment.

In practice:

• Fine with a public tool: drafting a polite email with no client details, brainstorming the structure of an argument, explaining a general concept you will verify.
• Needs a tool whose terms you've checked: summarising client documents, reviewing discovery, drafting advice that contains client facts.
• Needs court-specific care: anything involving suppressed, subpoenaed or compulsorily produced material, affidavits, witness statements and expert reports.

The core obligations behind the rules#

Practice notes restate duties lawyers already have. The joint regulator statement ties them to the Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules.

Confidentiality (ASCR r 9.1). Client information must stay confidential. Court rules add specific limits. SC Gen 23 says suppressed material, material produced on subpoena and material subject to the Harman undertaking must not be entered into any AI program unless it stays within a controlled environment whose supplier is bound by confidentiality, is used only for that proceeding, and isn't used to train any model. The Federal Court adds that even a ringfenced tool may breach the implied undertaking if outputs are later used for a different purpose.

Verification and candour. Every citation must exist and support the proposition, and every reference to evidence must be accurate. NSW and Victoria both say AI can't be the only check. The consequences are real: in August 2025 the Victorian Legal Services Board + Commissioner varied the practising certificate of a practitioner who gave the court a list of AI-generated authorities with inaccurate citations. He can no longer practise as a principal or handle trust money, and must complete two years of supervised legal practice.

Integrity of evidence. Affidavits and witness statements must reflect the witness's own knowledge and, in most courts, their own words. NSW bars AI from generating that content at all; SA allows careful AI-assisted drafting from an interview transcript with strict safeguards. Expert reports must contain the expert's own opinion and reasoning.

Independent advice and competence (ASCR r 4.1). AI output is not a substitute for your own judgement or legal knowledge.

Fair costs. The joint statement says billing should reflect the legal work actually done, and AI shouldn't push costs above traditional methods.

Disclosure where required. Follow the court's rules, and be ready to explain to the court and your client what tool you used and how you checked the output.

Firm-level checklist#

• Policy. A written AI policy that names approved tools, who may use them, for what, and with what information. The joint regulator statement recommends making it available to clients on request.
• Approved tools only. Check each tool's terms: where data is stored and processed, whether inputs are used for training, retention, who at the vendor can access it, and confidentiality obligations.
• Risk tiers. Low-risk tasks (drafting, structure) allowed; high-risk tasks (unfamiliar law, translation of advice) need independent verification or are prohibited.
• Restricted material rule. No suppressed, subpoenaed, Harman-protected or statutory-restricted material in any AI tool without partner sign-off against the court's conditions.
• Citation check. Every authority checked against an authoritative source (for example AustLII or an authorised legislation site) by a person, not another AI tool.
• Evidence rule. No AI-generated content in affidavits, witness statements or character references in NSW; strict process elsewhere.
• Experts. Give experts the relevant practice note (NSW and FCFCOA require this) and ask them to confirm how they used AI.
• Court-by-court disclosure register for the jurisdictions you appear in.
• Supervision. How juniors' and support staff's AI use is supervised and reviewed.
• File notes. Record when AI was used on a matter and how output was verified.
• Billing. Time recorded reflects work actually done.
• Training and review. Staff training, and a scheduled review as the rules change.

Choosing a tool that fits the rules#

The courts' conditions give you a practical test. Before putting client or court material into an AI tool, confirm that the information stays in a controlled environment, the supplier is bound by enforceable confidentiality, your data is not used to train models, and you can use it only for the matter it belongs to.

AusGPT was built for that kind of assessment. It runs Anthropic's Claude through Amazon Bedrock with processing in AWS Sydney and Melbourne, stores conversations and documents in Australia, and does not use your data to train AI models. Bedrock does not share prompts or responses with Anthropic. You still need to assess it against each court's conditions and your own obligations, and nothing removes the duty to verify output. See how firms use it on our legal and compliance page, and read more about data location in our guide to sovereign AI in Australia.