AI and solicitors' professional obligations in Australia

Using AI does not change a solicitor’s duties. Under the Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015, five rules do most of the work: rule 3 (duty to the court), rule 4 (competence and independence), rule 9 (confidentiality), rule 19 (frankness in court) and rule 37 (supervision). This guide maps each one to reception, intake, drafting and research.

This page is general information, not legal advice. Yes AI is not a law firm. Read the rules, regulator guidance and practice notes that apply where you practise, and get advice on your own circumstances.

Which rules apply, and where?

The Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015 are made by the Legal Services Council under the Legal Profession Uniform Law, which is administered by local regulators in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. In Victoria the Uniform Law applies through the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014. Solicitors in other states and territories work under conduct rules published by their own regulator, which should be read directly.

In December 2024 the three Uniform Law regulators issued a joint Statement on the use of artificial intelligence in Australian legal practice. It sets out the regulators’ expectations under the existing conduct rules and cites the rule behind each point, which makes it a useful document to give staff.

The table summarises the rules as made in 2015; a copy of the 2015 Rules is hosted by the Victorian Bar. Check rule numbers against the current version before you quote them in a policy.

Does the confidentiality rule stop a firm using AI?

Rule 9 does not ban AI. It limits who client information can go to. The joint statement puts it directly: lawyers “cannot safely enter confidential, sensitive or privileged client information into public AI chatbots/copilots”, and if they use commercial tools with client information they need to review the contract terms so the information stays secure.

The Law Society of New South Wales goes further in A solicitor’s guide to responsible use of artificial intelligence, updated in January 2026. It says placing confidential client information into a publicly available generative AI system is akin to putting it in the public domain, is likely to breach confidentiality, and may cost the client privilege.

What to check in a vendor’s terms before any client information goes in:

1. Whether your inputs or outputs are used to train the vendor’s models, and whether that is switched off by contract or only by a setting.
2. How long prompts, files, recordings and transcripts are kept, and how deletion is confirmed.
3. Where data is processed and stored, and which subcontractors handle it.
4. Who at the vendor can access your data, and whether access is logged.
5. What happens to your data if you stop using the service.

The private AI for law firms page covers tools that keep data inside a controlled environment.

What does competence mean when a tool writes the first draft?

Rule 4.1.3 does not ask solicitors to avoid new tools. It asks them to deliver the work competently. The joint statement says no tool based on current large language models can be free of “hallucinations”, and that lawyers using AI to prepare documents must be able and qualified to verify the content personally, and must actually check it.

Independence matters as much. Under rule 4.1.4 the advice has to be the solicitor’s own. The joint statement says AI chatbots and similar tools cannot reason, understand or advise, and that a lawyer cannot use a tool’s output in place of their own assessment of the client’s needs. It suggests keeping AI to lower-risk work that is easy to check.

What do the courts now require?

Several courts have issued AI documents since 2025, three of them in April and May 2026:

• The Federal Court’s GPN-AI, dated 16 April 2026, says presenting false or inaccurate information to the Court is unacceptable and expects the person responsible for a document to have confirmed that cited authorities exist and support the proposition stated.
• The Supreme Court of Victoria’s Practice Note SC Gen 25, in force from 14 May 2026, makes court users responsible for their documents whether or not AI was used, and warns that lawyers who rely on unverified AI output may be referred to the Victorian Legal Services Board + Commissioner and face personal costs orders. It replaced the Court’s 2024 guidelines for litigants.
• The Federal Circuit and Family Court’s PD-AI, issued 29 May 2026, applies to drafting, transcription and document tools whether or not they are labelled AI.
• In New South Wales, Practice Note SC Gen 23 has applied since 3 February 2025 and restricts generative AI in evidence.

In Victorian civil proceedings, SC Gen 25 also reminds court users of their obligations under the Civil Procedure Act 2010, including certifying that claims have a proper basis.

Regulators have acted on this. On 19 August 2025 the Victorian Legal Services Board varied the practising certificate of a solicitor after a list and summary of authorities he tendered, generated with AI, contained inaccurate citations. According to the VLSB+C statement on the matter, he can no longer practise as a principal or handle trust money, and must work under supervision for 2 years.

Who is responsible for supervising AI use?

Rule 37.1 places reasonable supervision on the solicitor with designated responsibility for a matter, and the Law Society of New South Wales guide notes that the Uniform Law makes law practice principals responsible for the legal services their practice provides. In practice that means a named person reviews AI-assisted work before it is settled, and the firm’s policy says how.

Supervision matters more because use is uneven. The Victorian regulator’s census research brief found AI use was highest among lawyers under 30, at 49%, and that general-purpose tools such as ChatGPT and Copilot were by far the most widely used, at 65%. A junior solicitor may not yet have the experience to spot a plausible but wrong answer. The AI policy checklist turns this into written rules.

What do the duties mean for reception, intake, drafting and research?

Reception and intake carry the lowest risk on this list, because the agent collects and routes information rather than advising. That is why many firms start there. The AI receptionist and legal document automation pages show how those controls work in practice.

Costs and telling clients

The joint statement asks lawyers to make sure the time and work they bill reflect the legal work done, and that AI does not raise a client’s costs above traditional methods, for example through time spent fixing its output. It also expects lawyers to record and disclose to clients when and how AI was used on a matter, and how that affected costs if the client asks. The Law Society of New South Wales guide adds that where a firm bills by time, time saved through AI should show in the bill.

If you want to see how an AI agent would sit within these duties at your firm, book a demo and ask your questions.