There is growing use of generative AI to assist legal practitioners in the day-to-day practice of law. Used effectively, it can be a powerful tool for practitioners. Used poorly, it can be a disaster for client and lawyer alike.
On 24 September 2025, the Queensland Supreme Court issued Practice Direction 5 of 2025 which both acknowledges the increasing use of AI as a tool and addresses the risk posed by the mises of AI.
In summary:
1. Legal practitioners are responsible for the accuracy of written and oral submissions prepared with the assistance of generative AI; and
2. To the extent that those submissions include reference to non-existent legislation, cases, or other material, the practitioner may be referred to the Legal Services Commission for investigation and/or may be required to show cause why a personal costs order should be made against them.
Queensland, like New South Wales, is taking the advent of generative AI in legal practice seriously and so should you.
Queensland Supreme Court Practice Direction 5 of 2025
The new Practice Direction in Queensland places practitioners on notice of the risks they face by relying on generative AI in the drafting and reformulation of submissions to court where those submissions contain references to non-existent legislation, cases, or other material.
A copy of the new Practice Direction can be found here: https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/courts/supreme-court/practice-directions
Relevantly:
1. Written submissions now must include reference at the end to the person(s) responsible for those submissions, rather than simply naming the firm on record for the party;
2. Where oral submissions are made, that person is also deemed responsible for any written submissions filed;
3. By placing your name on written submissions, or allowing that to happen, you are informing the Court that you have:
a) Verified the accuracy and relevance of any references to legislation, authorities or other sources; and
b) Ensured that the document is expressed in terms which reflect your judgment as to the proper discharge of your professional and ethical obligations
4. That obligation applies to any oral submissions made as well.
5. If you are found to have been the responsible person for submissions (written or oral) which contain references to non-existent cases, legislation or other material, you may be the subject of a referral to the LSC and/or be required show cause as to why a costs order should not be made against you personally.
The Practice Direction repays close study and practitioners who fall foul of it will quickly know about it.
The New South Wales position
In early 2025, New South Wales introduced Supreme Court Practice Note SC Gen 23 – Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence. The Practice Note sets out a comprehensive framework for the use of generative AI in litigation, including with respect to the preparation of affidavits, submissions, expert reports, and the control of confidential information.
Importantly:
1. Generative AI must not be used to generate the content of affidavits, witness statements, or character references;
2. Affidavits (or similar evidence) must state that generative AI was not used to generate their content;
3. Where AI was used to prepare written submissions or skeleton arguments, the author must verify in the body of the document that all citations exist, are accurate, and are relevant, and that the verification was not carried out solely by an AI tool.
Whilst there is some similarity with Queensland’s recent Practice Direction, New South Wales has taken a more rigorous approach to the use of generative AI in the conduct of litigation in its Courts.
The Takeaways
With the uptick in the use of generative AI by legal practitioners, it important that you:
1. Ensure strict compliance with relevant Practice Directions;
2. Manually verify each citation generated by AI to ensure it is legitimate;
3. Make a note your verification. For example, make a file note explaining the steps taken to verify the veracity of the citations;
4. Treat AI as a drafting assistant only and never as a substitute for sound professional judgment or research.
It is crucial, now more than ever, that practitioners are diligent in the use of generative AI in legal practice.
Tagged in: AI, Artificial Intelligence, generative AI, New South Wales, Practice Direction, Queensland, Supreme Court