The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA) has released a practice direction outlining specific obligations for all court users regarding the use of artificial intelligence. Chief Justice William Alstergren introduced the new guidelines, which were developed by the court’s AI committee following internal and external consultation. The document notes that AI is increasingly embedded in software and services used for drafting, search, transcription, and document management. According to the court’s update, the practice direction will be updated over time to reflect rapid changes in how AI is utilised.
Under the new rules, any AI use must be consistent with professional and legal obligations, including duties to the courts. Users must also ensure compliance with confidentiality and data security requirements and avoid using AI in ways that could jeopardise the safety of children and other court users. The direction aims to promote public confidence in court processes by ensuring that parties and lawyers adhere to principles of integrity, accuracy, accountability, and safety.
Related: NZ Law Firms Embrace Legal AI
For experts preparing reports or opinions, the practice direction requires strict adherence to the guidelines. Lawyers engaging private expert witnesses must provide them with a copy of the document and verify that the expert has reviewed it. Court users are instructed to verify and proofread any AI-generated content, refer only to accurate legislation and case law, and refrain from altering or generating material in a misleading way. The rules apply regardless of how a product is described, whether it is labelled as AI, GenAI, smart, or assistive.
Users must also ensure the authenticity of evidence and adapt material to the country’s legal context. When asked about their use of AI, they are required to explain the specific tool utilised and how they reviewed the output. If AI use may impact the integrity of proceedings, users must raise these issues with the presiding judicial officer.
Related: NSW judge warns of miscarriage of justice in Farhat parole case
There is an inherent tension in modern legal workflows between the efficiency of automated tools and the need for verifiable human oversight. The requirement that experts certify they have read the practice direction before submitting reports creates a friction point where the speed of AI-assisted drafting is checked by the slower, more deliberate process of manual verification. This dynamic forces a reconciliation between rapid technological adoption and the slower, more methodical demands of evidentiary integrity.
The FCFCOA has the authority to disregard material affected by inappropriate AI use, issue cost orders, or refer matters to relevant regulatory bodies. The practice direction emphasises that users must comprehend how AI systems store and use data, particularly regarding the risks of entering confidential or sensitive information into public tools. Court users must meet all confidentiality obligations and legislation protecting sensitive data to mitigate these risks.
