AI for Australian law firms: what's allowed and what helps
Australian lawyers can use ChatGPT or Claude within the 2024 joint statement and NSW Practice Note SC Gen 23. What's allowed, what's safe and what helps.
Want this done for you? Book a free 30-minute AI audit
Australian lawyers can use ChatGPT, Claude and similar tools, but not with confidential or privileged client information in public AI tools, and they must personally check every output. That is the position of the NSW, Victorian and WA regulators’ joint statement of 06/12/2024. On Autopilot, a Melbourne AI consultancy, builds the safe parts for small firms, such as an AI Lead Engine that qualifies enquiries and books consults for $2,000 setup plus $499 a month.
Can Australian lawyers use ChatGPT or Claude?
Yes. No Australian rule stops lawyers using generative AI altogether. The regulators’ position is that you may use it, but you remain responsible for everything it produces, you must not put confidential or privileged information into public tools, and AI is no substitute for your own legal judgement. Courts add their own rules on top, and the NSW Supreme Court’s are the most detailed.
The practical question is which account you use. A personal ChatGPT or Claude subscription is the kind of public tool the regulators mean. Business plans and APIs change the data terms, though not your duties (as at October 2026):
| Plan | Price | Used to train the model? |
|---|---|---|
| ChatGPT Plus (personal) | About $33 a month including GST | Can be, unless you turn off “Improve the model for everyone” (OpenAI) |
| Claude Pro (personal) | US$20 a month (about A$33 including GST at checkout; check current pricing) | Your choice since 28/08/2025 (Anthropic) |
| ChatGPT Business | US$25 per user a month, or US$20 billed annually (OpenAI) | Not by default |
| Claude Team | US$25 per standard seat a month, or US$20 billed annually, 2–150 seats (Anthropic) | Not by default (Anthropic) |
| Claude on Amazon Bedrock, Australian profile | Usage-based | Not by default; data stays in the Sydney and Melbourne regions for supported models (AWS) |
A business plan is a better home for firm work, but the joint statement’s warning is about confidentiality, not only training. Our Claude vs ChatGPT comparison covers the plans in more depth.
What are the rules on AI for law firms in Australia?
Two documents set the floor. The joint statement of 06/12/2024 from the Law Society of NSW, the Legal Practice Board of WA and the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner covers how lawyers use AI generally. The NSW Supreme Court’s Practice Note SC Gen 23, in force since 03/02/2025, sets specific rules for court documents. Other courts have their own notes, so check the one you are filing in.
The joint statement. The joint statement on the use of AI in Australian legal practice says lawyers:
- must not enter confidential or privileged client information into public AI tools;
- must personally verify anything AI produces before relying on it;
- cannot use AI as a substitute for their own legal judgement;
- must make sure billing reflects the work actually done.
NSW Supreme Court Practice Note SC Gen 23. SC Gen 23:
- bans entering material subject to a suppression order or the Harman undertaking into generative AI;
- bans using AI to generate the content of affidavits, witness statements and character references;
- requires the court’s leave before AI is used for expert reports;
- requires citations to be verified by a person, without using AI to do the checking.
Our overview of Australian AI compliance covers the Privacy Act and consumer law side.
How do you protect privilege and confidentiality when using AI?
Treat an AI provider like any outside service that sees client files: it needs contractual confidentiality, no training on your data, known storage locations and access limited to your firm. Never paste client documents into a personal account. The safe assumption is that putting privileged material into a tool you do not control puts both privilege and confidentiality at risk.
A short firm policy covers most of it:
- Firm-owned AI accounts on a business plan or API, with multi-factor sign-in. No personal accounts for firm work.
- A written list of what never goes in, even on the firm account: suppressed or Harman material, and anything a client has asked you to keep out of AI tools.
- Remove names and identifying details wherever the task does not need them.
- Check your professional indemnity insurer’s position, and the terms of any government or corporate client that sets its own AI rules.
- Note on the file when AI was used and for what.
Our AI privacy guide explains the plan settings in more detail.
Why must every AI citation be checked?
Because general AI tools can invent cases, quotations and pinpoint references that look entirely real. Courts here and overseas have criticised filings containing fake AI-generated citations, the regulators require lawyers to personally verify AI output, and in the NSW Supreme Court citations must be checked without using AI. The only safe routine is to open every authority yourself.
- Find each case on AustLII or in an authorised report, by name and citation.
- Confirm the citation, court and year match.
- Read the passage at the pinpoint and confirm it says what the draft claims.
- Check later treatment, for example with AustLII’s LawCite, so you know it has not been overturned or doubted.
- Record who verified the authorities.
Can AI handle client intake?
Yes, the administrative part. An assistant on your website or intake form can reply within minutes, collect the matter type, state, pressing dates and the names of every other party, book a consult and turn those names into a conflict search list. It should not assess the merits or give advice, and whether you can act stays a lawyer’s decision. Keep the facts collected before conflicts are cleared to a minimum.
| Intake stage | What the AI collects or does | What waits for a lawyer |
|---|---|---|
| First reply | Acknowledges, says it is AI and not legal advice, offers a consult time | Anything about the enquirer’s own legal position |
| Before conflicts are cleared | Name, contact details, matter type, state, other parties’ names, pressing dates | Detailed facts, documents and strategy |
| Conflict check | Formats the parties into a search list for your practice management system | Running the search and deciding whether you can act |
| Urgent matters | Alerts a person straight away: a court date within days, an arrest, family violence | Everything after that alert |
Why keep facts to a minimum early: detailed confidential information from someone you then cannot act for can create its own conflict.
What can AI safely do in a small law firm?
Beyond intake, AI is safest where a lawyer checks the output before anyone relies on it: summarising documents for the lawyer, producing first drafts from your own precedents, and drafting plain-English cost and progress updates for clients. Each produces a draft for a person to act on, never advice or a decision sent on its own, and each should run on a firm account rather than a personal one.
Document summaries for the lawyer
Given a lease, a bundle of correspondence or a set of expert reports, AI can produce a chronology, a list of key dates and parties, and a summary with page references, so the lawyer knows where to look. It is a map, not a substitute: read the source for anything you will rely on. In NSW Supreme Court matters, keep suppressed material and Harman-covered documents out of AI entirely.
First drafts from firm precedents
Give the AI your own precedent and the matter instructions, and ask it to fill the precedent and flag every assumption with [CHECK] rather than guessing. Working from your precedents, not the AI’s general knowledge, means the structure and clauses are ones your firm has already approved. Do not use it for the content of affidavits, witness statements or character references in the NSW Supreme Court.
Plain-English cost and progress updates
From your billing records and file notes, AI can draft a short client update: what has happened, what it has cost against the estimate, what comes next and what you need from the client. That supports your costs disclosure obligations and can head off “where is my matter up to?” calls. A lawyer checks the figures before it goes, and the bill reflects work actually done.
Before buying a separate AI tool, check what your LEAP, Smokeball or Actionstep subscription already includes; features and data terms differ by product and plan. Anything built alongside it should read from the matter and write back to it, so nobody ends up with a second file.
How On Autopilot can help
On Autopilot’s AI Lead Engine ($2,000 setup plus $499 a month, ex GST) qualifies each new enquiry against your practice areas and jurisdictions, captures the other parties’ names for your conflict check, drafts a reply in your voice for a lawyer to approve, books the consult and syncs to your CRM. It follows the same pattern as the lead pipeline we run for our own VA agency, DotVA. If you only need after-hours enquiries acknowledged and booked, the AI Front Desk is $1,500 plus $199 a month. Managed AI runs it all from $1,500 a month. Start with a free 30-minute AI audit with Jenn Yang.
Common questions
Is it safe to put client documents into ChatGPT or Claude?
Not into a personal or free account. The 2024 joint statement from the NSW, Victorian and WA regulators says not to enter confidential or privileged information into public AI tools, and consumer plans can use chats for training. If your firm uses AI on client material, use a business or API account in the firm's name, with training off by default, known storage and terms your insurer accepts.
Can I bill a client for work AI did?
Bill for the work actually done. The regulators' joint statement says billing must reflect the work performed, so if AI turns a long first draft into a short review, charge for the review, not for the time the draft used to take. Fixed fees for clearly defined work are one way to share the saving with clients and keep billing simple to explain.
Can a chatbot on our website answer legal questions?
Keep it to information about your firm, intake and booking, and say clearly that it is AI and not legal advice. A business answers for what its chatbot says: in Moffatt v Air Canada (2024), a Canadian tribunal held the airline liable for wrong refund advice given by its website chatbot. Anything about the enquirer's own situation should go to a lawyer.
Does the Privacy Act apply to a small law firm?
It depends on turnover and what you do. Businesses with annual turnover of $3 million or less are generally exempt, though some activities bring a small business back in. Your duty of confidentiality to clients applies regardless of size, and so does the joint statement on AI. Firms the Act does cover must also meet APP 8 when client information is processed overseas.
Want this built for your business?
Book a free 30-minute AI audit call with Jenn Yang. We map where your time goes, name the first systems worth building and give you fixed AUD prices. No obligation.
Book a free AI auditOr have us run it for you, end to end: On Autopilot is Australia's outsourced AI department.