Federal Court AI Practice Note

Federal Court AI Practice Note: Efficient litigation still needs lawyer judgment

The Federal Court of Australia’s Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Practice Note (GPN-AI) is a useful reminder for clients: AI can make litigation more efficient, but it does not remove the need for careful legal supervision.

 

For businesses involved in disputes, this matters because the largest litigation costs often come from process-heavy work: document review, chronology building, factual analysis, evidence organisation and first-pass drafting. AI-assisted workflows can reduce time spent on those tasks. But in court proceedings, the risks are also sharper: confidential information, privilege, accuracy, evidentiary duties and professional obligations all need to be managed.

 

What the Practice Note is really saying

The Practice Note does not, of course, prohibit generative AI. It recognises that AI tools may be used in litigation to the advantage of clients and the justice system, but it sets expectations about responsible use. Key themes include:

• protecting confidential, suppressed, private and privileged information;

• avoiding false or inaccurate AI-generated material;

• ensuring lawyers and parties remain responsible for what is filed or relied on;

• treating AI-generated legal or factual analysis with caution;

• preserving the integrity of information obtained through compulsory court processes.

 

The Court’s guidance is particularly important where AI is used for pleadings, submissions, evidence, expert material or analysis that may affect the conduct of proceedings.

 

The cost-saving opportunity

Used properly, AI can help reduce litigation costs by accelerating lower-value stages of the work. Examples include:

• organising large document sets;

• extracting dates, names, issues and obligations;

• preparing draft chronologies;

• comparing versions of documents;

• identifying possible evidentiary gaps;

• creating first-pass summaries for lawyer review.

 

These tasks are expensive when done manually from scratch. AI can reduce duplication and process waste. But the saving comes from using AI as a supervised workflow tool — not from outsourcing legal judgment to software.

 

The risk-control point for clients

Clients should ask their lawyers practical questions before AI is used in a dispute:

1. What AI tools are being used, and for what purpose?

2. Will confidential or privileged information be entered into any external system?

3. Is the environment closed, controlled or otherwise protected?

4. How are outputs checked for accuracy?

5. Who is responsible for final legal analysis and court documents?

6. Does the workflow comply with court expectations and professional obligations?

 

These questions are not anti-AI. They are what responsible AI-enabled legal work now requires.

 

Law Flow’s lens

The Federal Court’s Practice Note supports the right model for modern litigation: AI-assisted, lawyer-led. The aim should be lower legal costs without lower legal standards.

 

AI is most valuable when it reduces wasted time and gives lawyers better organised material sooner. It is least appropriate when used as an unsupervised substitute for legal reasoning, advocacy, evidence evaluation or strategic judgment.

 

For clients, the practical takeaway is simple: AI can help make litigation more efficient, but only where confidentiality, privilege, accuracy and lawyer accountability are built into the process from the start.

 

Sources:

• Federal Court of Australia, *Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Practice Note (GPN-AI)*: https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/law-and-practice/practice-documents/practice-notes/gpn-ai

• Federal Court of Australia, *Notice to the Profession*, 29 April 2025: https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/law-and-practice/practice-documents/notice-to-profession/29-april-2025

 

Disclaimer/footer:

This article is general information, not legal advice. For advice about your circumstances, contact Law Flow.