The useful starting point
Fluent wording is not verification. Keep sensitive material out of unapproved tools and ask a qualified adviser to assess any draft before relying on it.
An AI tool can produce a confident-looking letter, summary or agreement without establishing that its facts, authorities or legal approach are correct. The OAIC identifies privacy risks in commercially available AI tools, and Australian courts have issued guidance about AI use. This article is about preparing a review request, not approving a tool or claiming that an AI-generated document is suitable for filing or signing.
Separate organisation from legal judgement
A list of documents or questions can be useful preparation, but a draft asserting legal rights requires different scrutiny. Ask what facts the tool assumed and whether it introduced details you did not provide. Keep your original records alongside the draft. A polished paragraph should not replace the evidence or determine which legal process you pursue.
Consider privacy before uploading documents
The OAIC recommends that organisations avoid entering personal information, particularly sensitive information, into publicly available generative AI tools as a matter of best practice. For your own enquiry, ask the law firm which communication or document tool it approves. Do not assume that removing a name removes every identifying detail. Consider information about other people as well as your own.
Verify sources and jurisdiction
If a draft cites a case, statute or procedural rule, ask the adviser to verify that it exists, is current and applies to the relevant issue. A real source can still be quoted inaccurately or used out of context. Distinguish the source-checking task from rewriting the language. Editing a draft to sound more formal does not establish that its legal reasoning is sound.
Check the actual court’s rules
The Federal Circuit and Family Court’s AI practice direction applies to its court users and emphasises responsible use. Other courts and processes may have their own requirements. Tell your adviser if AI was used and ask what rules apply to the proposed document. Do not assume a general website article gives permission to use generated text in evidence, submissions or another formal document.
Brief the reviewer honestly
Illustrative review request: ‘I used an AI tool to create this draft from these inputs. Please check the facts, sources, jurisdiction and whether this is the right document for my purpose.’ Identify what confidential information was entered and any version already sent. Ask whether the lawyer will review the draft, replace it or first advise on the underlying issue, and confirm the cost of that task.
Sources and scope
The linked sources support the official context. Our comparison examples and preparation frameworks are original editorial tools. Examples are illustrative, not reports of client matters.
- OAIC — privacy and commercially available AI products ↗
Australian privacy guidance directed to organisations; the practical enquiry example is original editorial guidance. Link and context checked .
- Federal Circuit and Family Court — AI practice direction ↗
Court-specific AI requirements and guidance. Check the rules of the actual court and document involved. Link and context checked .
General preparation information. No individual legal assessment or professional legal review is claimed. How this content is prepared →