Guide

AI for law firms in Australia: the tools and the rules

By Brett Raven, APAC Lead & Board Member, AIREUpdated 23 October 2026First published 30 September 2026

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.

Legal AI tools in Australia (checked 23 October 2026)

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.

Legal AI tools in Australia, checked 23 October 2026
Tool	What it does	Good for	Australian availability and data location	Published price
Harvey	A legal AI platform that stores, organises and analyses legal documents in bulk and researches legal, regulatory and tax questions, with access to Australian legislation, case law and regulatory sources.	Larger firms that want one platform for document review and research.	Announced a Sydney office in July 2025, opening that September. Harvey hosts on Microsoft Azure and offers processing in Australia. It says it doesn't use inputs, outputs or uploaded documents to train the underlying models.	Not published.
Lexis+ with Protégé (LexisNexis)	Legal research and drafting that reasons from Australian primary law and LexisNexis commentary, with citations checked in CaseBase, and analysis of the firm's own files.	Firms that already research on Lexis.	LexisNexis says it is hosted in Australia and that research and drafting stay onshore. Prompts, documents and drafts aren't used to train public AI models or to improve AI for other customers.	Quoted by firm size. Not published.
CoCounsel Legal (Thomson Reuters)	Research, drafting and document analysis grounded in Westlaw authority, Practical Law guidance and the firm's own documents, working with Microsoft 365.	Firms on Westlaw or Practical Law.	Sold by Thomson Reuters Australia, which says your data isn't used to train AI models. The product page doesn't say where data is hosted.	Not published.
habeas	An Australian legal research and drafting platform, founded in 2023. Answers are grounded in Australian case law and legislation and cited to paragraph level, and it searches documents you upload.	Litigators, barristers, sole practitioners and boutique firms.	habeas says user conversations are kept separate and stored on Australian servers.	A$125 a month (Sole Practitioner, up to 500 queries) or A$200 a month (Professional, up to 1,000 queries). Firm pricing on request. GST treatment isn't stated.
LEAP Matter AI	Reads every document, email and attachment in a LEAP matter and answers with references you can check. Draws on LawY for cited answers verified by qualified Australian lawyers.	Firms already running on LEAP.	LEAP hosts Australian and New Zealand firms on AWS in Sydney. It says some AI features, including Matter AI, may send limited client data to the US for processing by AI service providers.	Included in every LEAP subscription at no extra cost.
Archie AI (Smokeball)	Works inside a Smokeball matter, and in Word and Outlook, to summarise, draft, check documents against the firm's playbooks and answer questions. Brings in LawY guidance on legal questions.	Small and mid-sized firms on Smokeball.	Runs in Smokeball's environment under zero-data-retention agreements, and Smokeball says data is never shared with third parties for training. Smokeball is ISO 27001 certified. The Archie page doesn't say where data is hosted.	An add-on to the Boost, Grow and Prosper+ plans, and Archie's own price isn't published. Plans start from $59 per user per month, excluding GST.
AI in Clio Manage, and Clio Work (Clio)	AI in Clio Manage summarises recent matter activity, suggests next actions, analyses documents and helps with drafting. Clio Work is a separate AI application.	Firms already on Clio.	Clio says its AI may process queries on servers outside your home jurisdiction, with the resulting data stored in your region, and that your data isn't used to train external AI models. Administrators can switch AI off for the whole firm.	Not stated on the pages we could read.
Microsoft Copilot (formerly Microsoft 365 Copilot)	Copilot in Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook and Teams, working on the documents and email your Microsoft 365 tenant already holds.	Firms that run on Microsoft 365.	Covered by the data residency commitments in Microsoft's Product Terms. Microsoft says queries from outside the EU may be processed in the US, the EU or other regions, and expects to offer processing in Australia by the end of 2026. Prompts and responses aren't used to train foundation models.	Copilot Business add-on: A$31.40 per user per month paid yearly (A$26.91 for the first year on an offer that ends 31 December 2026), or A$37.68 monthly, excluding GST. Needs an eligible Microsoft 365 Business plan.
ChatGPT Business or Enterprise (OpenAI)	General drafting and summarising, and custom GPTs built on the firm's precedents and house style.	Firms that want a general assistant beside their legal platform.	Eligible new Enterprise customers can store content at rest in Australia. In-region processing is offered only in Europe, the US and the UAE. OpenAI doesn't train on Business or Enterprise data by default.	Business, for teams of 2 to 200: a Standard seat is A$28 per user per month billed annually, or A$35 monthly, and a Premium seat A$140 billed annually, or A$175 monthly. OpenAI doesn't say whether its AUD prices include GST. Enterprise isn't published.
Claude Team or Enterprise (Anthropic)	Long documents and careful drafting: a matter file, a long contract, a transcript. Claude for Legal adds legal plugins and connectors (see the next section).	Reading and drafting across a whole file.	Anthropic says commercial data is stored in the US, and traffic may be routed through the US, Europe, Asia and Australia. No training on commercial plan data by default, unless a user sends feedback.	Team: A$34 per standard seat per month billed annually, or A$43 monthly, including GST, as Anthropic shows it to a visitor in Australia. Enterprise: US$20 per seat per month billed annually plus usage at API rates, with a 20-seat minimum, excluding tax.

Checked 23 October 2026. Each entry is what the vendor's own page said that day. "Good for" is AIRE's reading of the scope each vendor describes, not a ranking or an endorsement. Prices are shown as published, in the vendor's currency, and they change often, so check the vendor's page before you buy. Each vendor's page is listed in 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.

Claude for legal work

Anthropic released Claude for Legal on 12 May 2026. It adds 12 practice-area plugins and more than 20 connectors to software law firms already use, among them iManage, NetDocuments, Thomson Reuters' CoCounsel Legal and Harvey. Claude also works inside Word, Outlook, Excel and PowerPoint. Each plugin starts with a short interview that records the firm's playbook, escalation chain and house style.

An Australian firm should treat it as a kit built for the US market. The research connectors Anthropic names lean on US sources, such as CourtListener's US court opinions, and the CoCounsel plugin researches up to three US jurisdictions per run. Australian authority has to come from a research platform the firm subscribes to, or be checked by a lawyer against the original.

Anthropic's own instructions agree with the courts on checking. They describe every plugin output as a draft for a lawyer to review, and they flag any citation that comes from the model rather than a connected research tool for verification. The Federal Court and the Federal Circuit and Family Court both name Claude in their practice notes, so their rules apply to it as they do to any other tool.

Check where matter material goes before any of it goes in. Anthropic says data from its commercial plans is stored in the US, and that it doesn't train on commercial plan inputs or outputs by default. Claude Team costs A$34 per standard seat per month billed annually, including GST, as Anthropic shows it to a visitor in Australia. If your firm has chosen Claude, our Claude training runs on the firm's own documents.

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. The Federal Court, the Federal Circuit and Family Court, and the Supreme Courts of NSW, Victoria and Queensland all have one. They are compared in the court practice notes on generative AI below.

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.

Court practice notes on generative AI (checked 23 October 2026)

Two federal courts issued practice notes on generative AI in 2026, and so did the Supreme Court of Victoria. They sit beside the NSW Supreme Court's note, in force since February 2025, and Queensland's direction on references in submissions. All five put the check on a person: the lawyer verifies what AI produced, including the authorities it cites. They differ on disclosure and on evidence, so read the note of every court you appear in.

Court practice notes and directions on generative AI, checked 23 October 2026
Court	Document	What it requires of lawyers
Federal Court of Australia	Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Practice Note (GPN-AI), 16 April 2026	Applies to everyone who appears or files. The court can require disclosure of whether and how generative AI was used. The person responsible for a document is expected to have confirmed that cited authorities exist and support the proposition, and that chronologies are accurate. AI used to summarise or analyse material a witness relies on must be disclosed at the start of the document.
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia	Practice Direction: Use of Artificial Intelligence (PD-AI), issued 29 May 2026	Every authority must be checked to exist and to stand for the principle cited, and a tool isn't assumed accurate because it is paid or closed. Disclosure isn't required unless the court asks, except from expert witnesses, but the responsible lawyer must be able to explain how the output was checked. Discovered, subpoenaed and suppressed material stays out of any generative AI tool unless it stays in a closed environment, isn't used for training and is used only for that proceeding.
Supreme Court of NSW	Practice Note SC Gen 23, amended 28 January 2025, in effect from 3 February 2025	Generative AI must not generate the content of affidavits, witness statements or character references, which must say it wasn't used. Submissions prepared with it must verify that every citation exists, is accurate and is relevant, and not solely with AI. Suppressed, subpoenaed and Harman material goes only into a platform that meets the note's conditions. An expert report prepared with it needs the court's leave.
Supreme Court of Victoria	SC Gen 25: The use of Artificial Intelligence by Court users, issued 14 May 2026	No confidential or sensitive information in public AI tools. AI output must be verified with meaningful human control, and asking another AI tool to check it doesn't count. Court users must be ready to identify which parts of a document AI produced and explain how they were verified. Lawyers relying on unverified output may be referred to the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner and face personal costs orders.
Supreme Court of Queensland	Practice Direction 5 of 2025: Accuracy of References in Submissions, 24 September 2025	The individual solicitor or barrister responsible for written submissions is named at the end of them, not the firm, and must verify the accuracy and relevance of every reference. Citing a case or law that doesn't exist can lead to referral to the Legal Services Commissioner or a personal costs order.

Checked 23 October 2026 on each court's own site. This is a summary, not the full text, and it isn't legal advice. See the sources.

The NSW court invited submissions for a review of SC Gen 23, which closed on 18 December 2025. No newer version was on its site when we checked. Courts revise these notes, so check the current version, and the rules of any tribunal you appear in, before you file.

Conduct guidance from the profession

The court notes sit on top of the conduct rules, not in place of them. The regulators' December 2024 joint statement and the Law Society of NSW's January 2026 guide are covered in the obligations section above. The Federal Court's resources page also points solicitors to the Queensland Law Society's Guidance Statement No 37 (31 May 2024), and barristers to guidance from the NSW Bar Association (12 July 2023), the Victorian Bar's Ethics Committee (25 August 2025) and the Bar Association of Queensland (November 2025).

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.

AI risks in a law firm and the control for each
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 up to 8 people. Across our training, 97% of participants said they were likely to apply what they learned (Post-training survey, n=269, October 2025 to November 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.

What legal AI tools are available in Australia?

They fall into three groups. Legal research platforms answer from a publisher's own database: Lexis+ with Protégé, Thomson Reuters' CoCounsel Legal, Harvey and the Australian-built habeas. Practice management software now carries its own AI, such as LEAP's Matter AI, Smokeball's Archie and the AI in Clio. General assistants on a business plan, such as Microsoft Copilot, ChatGPT and Claude, sit beside them for drafting and long documents. Most legal platforms don't publish a price. LEAP includes Matter AI in every subscription, and habeas lists plans from A$125 a month.

Is legal AI hosted in Australia?

Some of it is, and the vendors say different things, so read each one's terms. LexisNexis says Lexis+ with Protégé is hosted in Australia. Harvey offers processing in Australia, and habeas says it stores conversations on Australian servers. LEAP hosts Australian firms in Sydney but says some AI features, including Matter AI, may send limited client data to the US for processing. OpenAI offers storage in Australia to eligible new ChatGPT Enterprise customers, and Anthropic says Claude's commercial data is stored in the US. This was checked on 23 October 2026.

Can lawyers use Claude for legal work in Australia?

Yes, on a business plan and within the same rules as any other tool. Anthropic's Claude for Legal, released on 12 May 2026, adds practice-area plugins and connectors to legal software, but its research connectors lean on US sources, so Australian authorities need a research platform behind them or a lawyer's check against the original. Anthropic says commercial plan data is stored in the US and isn't used for training by default. The Federal Court's and the Federal Circuit and Family Court's practice notes both name Claude as a generative AI tool. This is general information, not legal advice.

What does the Federal Court's practice note on generative AI require?

The Federal Court's Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Practice Note (GPN-AI), dated 16 April 2026, applies to everyone who appears before the court or files documents with it. The court can require a person to disclose whether and how generative AI was used. Where it was used to prepare a document, the court expects the responsible person to have confirmed that cited authorities exist and support the proposition stated. Use of AI to summarise or analyse material a witness relies on must be disclosed at the start of the document. Using it inconsistently with the note can lead to adverse costs orders. This is general information, not legal advice.

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. We read each source between 30 September 2026 and 23 October 2026, on the date shown beside it. 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 23 October 2026.
Supreme Court of Victoria, SC GEN 25: The use of Artificial Intelligence by Court users (issued 14 May 2026). Read 23 October 2026.
Federal Court of Australia, Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Practice Note (GPN-AI) (16 April 2026) (read from the court's RTF copy of the note, as the page returned 403). Read 23 October 2026.
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, FCFCOA Practice Direction: Use of Artificial Intelligence (issued 29 May 2026). Read 23 October 2026.
Supreme Court of Queensland, Practice Direction Number 5 of 2025: Accuracy of References in Submissions (24 September 2025). Read 23 October 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+ with Protégé. Read 23 October 2026.
Thomson Reuters Australia, CoCounsel Legal. Read 23 October 2026.
LEAP Legal Software, Matter AI: the AI assistant inside every LEAP matter. Read 23 October 2026.
Harvey, Harvey to expand team with new Sydney office (7 July 2025). Read 23 October 2026.
Harvey, Security. Read 23 October 2026.
LEAP Legal Software, Security. Read 23 October 2026.
habeas, Pricing (and the habeas home page). Read 23 October 2026.
Smokeball Australia, Archie AI: Legal Assistant for Australian Law Firms. Read 23 October 2026.
Smokeball Australia, Legal Software Pricing for Australian Law Firms. Read 23 October 2026.
Clio Help Centre, AI Features in Clio Manage. Read 23 October 2026.
Microsoft, Microsoft 365 Copilot Business pricing (Australia). Read 23 October 2026.
Microsoft Learn, Data, Privacy, and Security for Microsoft Copilot. Read 23 October 2026.
Microsoft, Microsoft offers in-country data processing to 15 countries to strengthen sovereign controls for Microsoft 365 Copilot (4 November 2025, updated 3 April 2026). Read 23 October 2026.
OpenAI, Enterprise privacy at OpenAI (updated 8 January 2026). Read 30 September 2026.
OpenAI, Business data privacy, security, and compliance. Read 23 October 2026.
OpenAI Help Center, Data residency and inference residency for ChatGPT. Read 23 October 2026.
OpenAI, ChatGPT pricing (the Business prices in A$, as the page shows them in Australia). Read 23 October 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 23 October 2026.
Anthropic Privacy Center, Where are your servers located? (commercial products, dated 15 June 2026). Read 23 October 2026.
Anthropic, Claude plans and pricing (as shown to a visitor in Australia). Read 12 October 2026.
Anthropic, Claude for the legal industry (12 May 2026). Read 23 October 2026.
Anthropic on GitHub, claude-for-legal: a suite of plugins for legal workflows (README). Read 23 October 2026.

AI for accountants in Australia: the tools and the rules
AI tools for accountants in Australia compared, how to use AI in an accounting firm, and what APES 110 and the TPB's 2026 guidance require.
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.

All AIRE guides