Sort what arrives
Group the documents and emails on a new matter by type and date, and list what is still missing.
What AI could run / legal practice
Let AI sort the matter file. A lawyer reviews everything.
New matter documents and routine letters can pass through connected AI agents inside the systems your firm already uses. A lawyer reviews every output, and the firm decides which tools may see client information. The conduct rules, the regulators and three courts put confidentiality, verification and supervision with the firm.
Discuss your businessPotential implementation areas
Define the work.
Keep the decision.
Draft the routine
Prepare a matter summary and routine letters or emails as starting points for the lawyer to edit.
Keep the record
Log what was drafted, which tool produced it, who approved it and when, in the system your firm already uses.
Example / not a live deployment
AI prepares.
A person decides.
Illustrative example
Firm sets tools and limits → Agent sorts documents → Agent drafts summary and letters → Lawyer reviews everything → Lawyer approves → Record kept
Nothing reaches a client or a court until a lawyer has reviewed it. The solicitor responsible for the matter supervises the work.
What the rules say
What the rules, regulators and courts say
A solicitor must not disclose information that is confidential to a client, except to people inside or engaged by the practice to deliver or administer the legal services, or as the rules allow.
Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules (Law Council compilation, June 2026), rule 9A solicitor must deliver legal services competently and diligently. The solicitor responsible for a matter must exercise reasonable supervision over everyone engaged in providing the services.
Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules, rules 4.1.3 and 37.1The Law Society of NSW, the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia and the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner say lawyers cannot safely enter confidential, sensitive or privileged client information into public AI chatbots, and should review the contract terms of any commercial tool.
Joint statement on the use of AI in Australian legal practice, December 2024The same statement recommends a written policy on which AI tools are used, by whom, for what and with what information, with supervision of junior and support staff and review before documents are settled.
Joint statement on the use of AI in Australian legal practice, December 2024The Law Society of NSW says generative AI cannot weigh a client's best interests, that humans stay accountable, and that practices need policies for appropriate use and supervision.
Law Society of NSW, A solicitor's guide to responsible use of AI, January 2026, pp. 4 to 6NSW Supreme Court: protected material such as suppressed or subpoenaed material must not go into a Gen AI program unless the practitioner is satisfied it stays in a controlled environment and is not used to train a model. Summarising documents and preparing chronologies are listed as permitted uses.
NSW Supreme Court Practice Note SC Gen 23, paras 9A and 9B (commenced 3 February 2025)NSW Supreme Court: Gen AI must not generate the content of affidavits or witness statements, and citations in submissions must be verified, not solely by using a Gen AI tool. The Court has said the note is under periodic review.
NSW Supreme Court Practice Note SC Gen 23, paras 10, 13, 16 and 17Supreme Court of Victoria: court users are responsible for their documents whether or not they used AI. AI content must be verified with meaningful human control, and users must be prepared to identify which parts used AI and how they were verified.
Supreme Court of Victoria Practice Note SC Gen 25, paras 6.1, 7.1 and 7.6 (14 May 2026)Federal Court: if the Court requires it, a person must disclose whether and how Gen AI was used. Restricted information, such as privileged or suppressed material, must not be entered in breach of the obligations attached to it.
Federal Court Practice Note GPN-AI, paras 2.1, 4.13 to 4.15 (16 April 2026)
These sources cover NSW, Victoria and Western Australia for the conduct rules and regulator statement, and the Supreme Courts of NSW and Victoria and the Federal Court for practice notes. Other states and courts have their own rules. This page summarises them. It is not legal advice, and no regulator or court has approved or endorsed a Numaya setup. Read the sources and take your own advice.
Questions law firms ask
Clarity before commitment.
Can we put client documents into a public AI chatbot?
No, say the Law Society of NSW, the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia and the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner. Their joint statement says lawyers cannot safely enter confidential, sensitive or privileged client information into public tools. For any commercial tool, review the contract terms first.
Do courts require us to disclose AI use?
It depends on the court and the document. In the NSW Supreme Court, affidavits and witness statements must say Gen AI was not used to generate their content. In Victoria, court users must be prepared to identify AI-produced parts and explain how they were verified. The Federal Court requires disclosure if the Court asks, and in listed situations.
Who is responsible if AI output is wrong?
The lawyer and the firm. The Victorian Supreme Court says court users are responsible for their documents whether or not they used AI, and the Law Society of NSW says humans are accountable. The solicitor responsible for a matter must supervise everyone working on it.
Does this apply to conveyancers?
This page is written for law firms. Conveyancers are licensed under separate state rules that we have not covered here, so check your own licensing requirements.
Related industries
Let's find your starting point
Which part of your business
would you improve first?
Tell us how your business works today and where you want AI to take on more of the work.
Discuss your business