Guide
AI for law firms in Australia: the tools and the rules
By Brett Raven, APAC Lead & Board Member, AIREUpdated
Yes, Australian law firms can use AI, and the regulators in NSW, Victoria and Western Australia have set out how. Confidential, sensitive or privileged client information stays out of public chatbots, and a commercial tool gets client information only after someone has reviewed its terms. A lawyer who uses AI to prepare a document must be able to verify it personally, and must actually do so. The courts add their own rules: in NSW, generative AI must not be used to generate the content of affidavits or witness statements, and submissions prepared with it must verify that every citation exists and is accurate and relevant. The workable pattern is a business plan or a legal platform, a written policy on what goes in, and a person who checks every authority against the source.
Where AI helps in a law firm
The work that suits AI is the work around legal judgement: reading, summarising, first drafts and finding things in a large file. The Supreme Court of NSW's practice note accepts several of those uses, subject to its confidentiality rules, including generating chronologies, indexes and witness lists, summarising or reviewing documents and transcripts, and preparing written submissions whose citations are then verified.
- First drafts. Letters, file notes, a first cut of a clause or a memo from the lawyer's notes. The lawyer edits it and owns the result.
- Discovery and long documents. A summary of a document set, a transcript or a long contract, and a dated chronology built from the file. The Law Society of NSW notes that high-volume, repeatable tasks, such as reviewing large volumes of documents quickly, are the most likely to benefit.
- Contract review support. Obligations, dates and unusual clauses pulled into a table for a lawyer to assess.
- Precedent research, with verification. Legal platforms answer from their own databases of cases and legislation and link what they cite. A general assistant shouldn't be asked to find cases at all. Either way, every authority is read in the original before anyone relies on it.
Where to hold back
The regulators' joint statement asks lawyers to consider limiting AI to lower-risk tasks that are easier to verify, such as drafting a polite email or suggesting how to structure an argument, and prohibiting it for higher-risk tasks, such as translating advice into another language, analysing an unfamiliar legal concept or executive decision-making. Evidence is its own category, covered by the court rules below.
The tools: general assistants and legal platforms
General assistants take whatever you give them. Legal platforms answer from a publisher's database of cases and legislation, or from the matter in your practice management system, and show what they relied on. A firm usually wants one of each, and may already have the second through a research subscription or its practice software.
| Tool | Built for | What the vendor says |
|---|---|---|
| ChatGPT Business (OpenAI) | General drafting and summarising, and custom GPTs built on the firm's precedents and house style. | No training on business data by default, unless you opt in, for example through feedback. Workspace admins can view, export and delete members' conversations. |
| Microsoft Copilot (formerly Microsoft 365 Copilot) | Work inside Word, Outlook and Teams, on the documents and email your Microsoft 365 tenant already holds. | Prompts, responses and the data it reads through Microsoft Graph aren't used to train foundation models. It follows your permissions, sensitivity labels and retention policies. Web search queries go to Bing, stripped of identifiers, under separate terms. |
| Claude Team or Enterprise (Anthropic) | Long documents and careful drafting: a matter file, a long contract, a transcript. | No training on commercial plan inputs or outputs by default. A chat a user rates with the thumbs up or down can be used for training, and plan owners can switch rating off. |
| Lexis+ with Protégé (LexisNexis, formerly Lexis+ AI) | Legal research grounded in LexisNexis content, drafting, document summaries and timelines, with CaseBase citation checks. Offers general models from OpenAI and Anthropic alongside its legal AI. | Its generative AI uses a private model that doesn't share user interactions with third parties to improve their products. |
| CoCounsel Legal (Thomson Reuters) | Research grounded in Westlaw and Practical Law, drafting in Word from your precedents, and document review that summarises and builds chronologies. | Your data isn't used to train AI models. |
| LEAP Matter AI | Answers questions about a LEAP matter from its documents and emails, citing the files it used, and turns answers into first drafts. Draws on LawY for questions of law, with cited answers verified by qualified Australian lawyers. Matter AI is included in every LEAP subscription. | Matter AI reads only the matter you open it from, lists the documents behind each answer, and lets you exclude documents. |
| Harvey | A legal AI platform for law firms and in-house teams. Announced a Sydney office in July 2025, opening that September. | Its security reflects the requirements of the Australian legal sector, and the platform gives access to Australian legislation, case law and regulatory sources. |
Each entry is what the vendor's own page said on 30 September 2026. None of it is an endorsement, and features change often. See the sources.
Buying a legal platform doesn't take you outside the court rules. The NSW practice note names products built for lawyers, among them Lexis Advance AI, Westlaw Precision and CoCounsel Core, alongside ChatGPT and Copilot as generative AI. It leaves out research software that only searches legislation, judgments and legal texts. So a platform's drafting and summarising count as generative AI for the note, and its citations still get checked.
The data commitments in the table belong to business plans and firm subscriptions. A lawyer's personal account sits under consumer terms, and the firm can't see what goes into it. For how the three general assistants compare, see ChatGPT vs Copilot vs Claude.
Your professional obligations, and what they mean in practice
General information, not legal advice. The rules below are summarised from the sources listed. Read them, and the practice notes of the courts you appear in, before relying on this.
The Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules don't mention AI. In December 2024 the Law Society of NSW, the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia and the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner issued a joint statement on how the Uniform Law and the rules apply to it. If you practise in another state, check your own regulator's position.
Confidentiality (rule 9)
Rule 9 bars disclosing a client's confidential information outside the practice unless an exception applies, the first being that the client authorises it. The joint statement says lawyers "cannot safely enter confidential, sensitive or privileged client information into public AI chatbots/copilots (like ChatGPT), or any other public tools." With a commercial tool, lawyers need to review the contract terms carefully to make sure client information will be kept secure.
The Law Society of NSW's guide is sharper about public tools: putting client confidential information into one "is akin to putting it in the public domain." It says that is likely to be a breach of confidentiality, and clients may lose privilege.
Competence, honesty and independence (rule 4)
Rule 4.1.3 requires a solicitor to deliver legal services competently and diligently, and the joint statement is specific about what that means with AI. No tool based on current large language models can be free of hallucinations, and lawyers using AI to prepare documents "must be able and qualified to personally verify the information they contain." On independence (rule 4.1.4), it says AI tools "cannot reason, understand, or advise", so the judgement stays with the lawyer.
Supervision (rule 37)
A solicitor with designated responsibility for a matter must exercise reasonable supervision over everyone working on it. The Law Society of NSW points to Murray v Victoria [2025] FCA 731, where footnotes to reports and papers that were mostly non-existent or incorrectly cited came from a junior solicitor's work, and the Court found her supervisor's failure to ensure adequate supervision contributed. The tool in that case was Google Scholar, but the supervision point carries over: the guide adds that a junior may not have the experience to evaluate AI output, so the checking belongs with someone who does.
Costs
Costs must be fair, reasonable and proportionate. The Law Society of NSW gives an example: if a practice billing by time finishes a task in half the time with AI's help, the time saved should show in the bill. The joint statement adds that AI shouldn't unnecessarily push a client's costs above traditional methods, for example through the time spent verifying or correcting its output.
The courts' own rules
Courts have issued practice notes of their own, and lawyers appearing in those courts must follow them.
- Supreme Court of NSW, Practice Note SC Gen 23. The current version was issued on 28 January 2025 and took effect on 3 February 2025. Suppressed material, material under the Harman undertaking, material produced on subpoena and material under a statutory bar on publication must not go into any generative AI program unless the lawyer is satisfied that it stays in a controlled environment under confidentiality restrictions, is used only for that proceeding, and isn't used for training. Generative AI must not be used to generate the content of affidavits, witness statements or character references, which must disclose that it wasn't used. Submissions prepared with it must verify in their body that every citation exists, is accurate and is relevant, and that check must not be done solely with AI. Using it to prepare an expert report needs the court's leave.
- Supreme Court of Victoria, SC Gen 25. Issued on 14 May 2026. Court users should not put confidential or sensitive information into a public AI tool, and with a closed tool they need to check its terms or settings first. Content produced with AI must be verified "with meaningful human control", and asking one AI tool to confirm another's output doesn't count. Court users must be ready to identify which parts of a document AI produced and how they were checked, and lawyers who rely on unverified output may be referred to the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner and face personal costs orders.
The NSW court invited submissions for a review of its note in late 2025. Check the current version, and the rules of every court and tribunal you appear in, before you file.
Privacy
Where the Privacy Act applies, entering a client's personal information into an AI tool is a use or disclosure that has to fit Australian Privacy Principle 6. The OAIC recommends, as best practice, that organisations don't enter personal information, and particularly sensitive information, into publicly available generative AI tools.
The risks, and the controls that deal with them
The failure that reaches the news is the invented citation, and Australia has a regulator's decision on it. In Dayal [2024] FedCFamC2F 1166, a Victorian practitioner tendered a list and summary of authorities generated with AI that contained inaccurate citations and summaries. On 19 August 2025 the Victorian Legal Services Board varied his practising certificate. He can no longer practise as a principal or handle trust money, and must work as an employee solicitor under supervision for two years.
| Risk | How it shows up | The control |
|---|---|---|
| Invented or wrong authority | A case that doesn't exist, a real case that doesn't say what the summary claims, or a quote that isn't in the judgment. | Read every authority in the original before relying on it. Don't rely on AI to check AI: the NSW and Victorian practice notes both say that isn't enough. |
| Confidential information in a public tool | A matter detail pasted into a personal account, or a public chatbot used on a phone. | Approved tools only, on business terms someone has read. Give people an approved option so they don't reach for their own. |
| Privilege | Privileged material put somewhere the practice doesn't control. | Keep privileged material in tools under the firm's control and confidentiality terms, and name those tools in the policy. |
| Court-restricted material | Subpoenaed documents, or material under the Harman undertaking or a suppression order, uploaded to an AI tool. | In NSW, only into a platform that meets the practice note's conditions. Flag these documents on the file so nobody uploads them out of habit. |
| Evidence | An affidavit or witness statement drafted or polished with AI. | In NSW, AI must not generate or rephrase a witness's evidence, and the affidavit must say it wasn't used. Preparatory work, such as a chronology from source documents, is allowed. |
| A polished draft from a junior | An AI-assisted draft reaches the supervising partner looking finished. | Note on the file when AI was used, and have someone with the experience to evaluate the output check it. |
| Costs | Time billed for work the tool did, or verification time that inflates the bill. | Bill for the work done. Time saved with AI shows in a time-based bill, and checking time shouldn't push the cost above doing it the old way. |
A rollout that holds up
The joint statement describes the policy it expects. It sets out which AI tools the practice uses, who can use them, for what purposes and with what information, how juniors' use is supervised, and how AI-assisted documents are reviewed before they're settled. It recommends making the policy available to clients on request. Build the rollout on that.
- Approve tools after reading the terms. The Law Society of NSW suggests a full contract review before buying, covering data ownership, data sharing and how prompts and data are stored. Give each tool only the data it needs, and control who can use it.
- Write the policy on the joint statement's lines, on one page if you can. Our one-page AI policy template is a starting point. Add the court rules for the jurisdictions you appear in.
- Tell clients. The Law Society of NSW suggests making sure clients are aware of and approve AI use on their work, and considering whether a client needs its data hosted onshore. The engagement terms are the natural place.
- Train on the firm's own work, such as a redacted discovery set and last month's letters. Include the verification steps and the court rules in the session.
- Set the review rule and keep records: who verifies what, against which source, and a note on the file. Keep testing the tool against your own benchmarks after adoption, as the Law Society of NSW suggests.
How AIRE helps law firms
In a law firm the work product is a document: a letter of advice, a contract, a chronology, a file note. So our training runs on those documents. It also settles what client material may go into which tool, and who checks the output before it leaves the firm.
Our AI training for business teams is hands-on and live, on whichever assistant you already license: Claude, ChatGPT or Microsoft Copilot. Team workshops start from $5,500 + GST for groups of 5 or more. Across our training, 96% of participants said they were likely to apply what they learned (Post-training survey, n=220, October 2025 to September 2026).
For the policy, our AI strategy consulting and governance work sets which plan to run on each tool, with settings your IT provider will sign off, and writes the one-page data-handling rule. We don't advise on the conduct rules themselves; that stays with the firm. Advisory work starts with a 90-minute AI use case session at $2,900 + GST.
Deciding which tools your lawyers may use on a matter? The discovery call is free and takes 30 minutes.
Frequently asked questions
Is it ethical for lawyers to use AI in Australia?
Yes, provided the lawyer's existing obligations are met. The December 2024 statement from the Law Society of NSW, the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia and the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner says lawyers using AI must still keep client information confidential, give independent advice, deliver legal services honestly and competently, and charge costs that are fair and proportionate. The Law Society of NSW's guide says a solicitor using generative AI should take the same care as they would with any legal assistant or paralegal. This is general information, not legal advice.
Can lawyers put client information into ChatGPT?
Not into a public chatbot. The regulators' joint statement says lawyers cannot safely enter confidential, sensitive or privileged client information into public AI chatbots like ChatGPT, or any other public tool. With a commercial tool, lawyers need to review the contract terms to make sure the information will be kept secure. OpenAI says it doesn't train on ChatGPT Business data by default, but the firm still has to read the terms and set a rule on what goes in. This is general information, not legal advice.
Do we have to tell clients we use AI?
The regulators' joint statement says lawyers should consider being transparent about their use of AI, including recording and disclosing to clients when and how they used it in a matter and how that is reflected in costs, if the client asks. It also recommends making the firm's AI policy available to clients on request, and the Law Society of NSW suggests making sure clients are aware of and approve AI use on their matters. Courts can require disclosure too: in NSW, an affidavit must state that generative AI wasn't used to generate its content. This is general information, not legal advice.
What does the NSW Supreme Court's practice note on AI require?
Practice Note SC Gen 23, in effect since 3 February 2025, keeps suppressed, subpoenaed and Harman-protected material out of generative AI unless the lawyer is satisfied the platform keeps it confidential, it will be used only for that proceeding and it won't be used for training. Generative AI must not be used to generate or rephrase the content of affidavits, witness statements or character references, which must disclose that it wasn't used. Submissions prepared with it must verify that every citation exists, is accurate and is relevant, and that check can't be done solely with AI. Using it to prepare an expert report needs the court's leave.
Has an Australian lawyer been disciplined over AI-generated citations?
Yes. In Dayal [2024] FedCFamC2F 1166, a Victorian practitioner tendered a list and summary of authorities generated with AI that contained inaccurate citations and summaries. On 19 August 2025 the Victorian Legal Services Board varied his practising certificate. He can no longer practise as a principal lawyer or handle trust money, and must practise as an employee solicitor under supervision for two years, with quarterly reports to the Board from him and his supervisor.
Can using AI put legal professional privilege at risk?
It can, mostly through public tools. The Law Society of NSW's guide says putting client confidential information into a publicly available generative AI system is akin to putting it in the public domain, that this is likely to breach confidentiality, and that clients may lose privilege. The NSW Supreme Court's practice note lists the lack of safeguards for privileged material in public chatbots among the risks lawyers should know. Keep privileged material in tools under the firm's control and confidentiality terms. This is general information, not legal advice.
Does AIRE train law firms?
Yes. We train legal teams on ChatGPT, Claude, Microsoft Copilot and Gemini, on the firm's own documents, and settle what client material may go into which tool and who checks the output before it leaves the firm. We don't advise on the conduct rules themselves: that stays with your firm and your regulator.
Sources
Every rule and product detail on this page comes from the regulator's, court's or vendor's own page, and we read each source on 30 September 2026. Practice notes and features change, so check the current version before you rely on one. This guide is general information, not legal advice.
- Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner, Statement on the use of artificial intelligence in Australian legal practice (6 December 2024) (a joint statement with the Law Society of New South Wales and the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia). Read 30 September 2026.
- Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner, Statement on the 'Mr Dayal' matter (2 September 2025). Read 30 September 2026.
- The Law Society of New South Wales, A solicitor's guide to responsible use of artificial intelligence (updated January 2026). Read 30 September 2026.
- Supreme Court of New South Wales, Practice Note SC Gen 23: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI) (issued 28 January 2025, commenced 3 February 2025). Read 30 September 2026.
- Supreme Court of New South Wales, Generative AI (last updated 23 March 2026) (the court's resources page, including the invitation to make submissions on the practice note's review). Read 30 September 2026.
- Supreme Court of Victoria, SC GEN 25: The use of Artificial Intelligence by Court users (issued 14 May 2026). Read 30 September 2026.
- NSW Legislation, Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules 2015 (current version, rules 4, 9 and 37). Read 30 September 2026.
- Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, Guidance on privacy and the use of commercially available AI products (updated 17 January 2025). Read 30 September 2026.
- LexisNexis Australia, Lexis+ AI is now Lexis+ with Protégé. Read 30 September 2026.
- Thomson Reuters Australia, CoCounsel Legal. Read 30 September 2026.
- LEAP Legal Software, Matter AI: the AI assistant inside every LEAP matter. Read 30 September 2026.
- Harvey, Harvey to expand team with new Sydney office (7 July 2025). Read 30 September 2026.
- OpenAI, Enterprise privacy at OpenAI (updated 8 January 2026). Read 30 September 2026.
- Microsoft Learn, Enterprise data protection in Microsoft Copilot and Microsoft Copilot Chat (last updated 18 August 2026). Read 30 September 2026.
- Anthropic Privacy Center, Is my data used for model training? (commercial products, dated 18 August 2026). Read 30 September 2026.
Related guides
- AI for accounting firms in Australia: the tools and the rules
Where AI saves time in an Australian accounting firm, which tools suit client work, and what APES 110 and the TPB's 2026 AI guidance require of you.
- A one-page AI policy template for Australian organisations
Copy a one-page AI policy for Australian organisations: approved tools, what data may go in, who checks output, who owns AI risk, and how to roll it out.
Related services
- AI training for business teams: hands-on sessions on the tools your team already licenses, run on your own documents.
- AI strategy consulting and governance: which plan to run on each tool, and a one-page rule on what may go into a prompt.