AI Contract Review, AI for Lawyers, and ChatGPT for Lawyers: Australian Guidance by State
- Trent Smith
- Oct 10, 2025
- 4 min read
Updated: Oct 11, 2025
AI Contract Review
AI contract review is rapidly becoming a standard tool in legal practice. Instead of manually scanning contracts clause by clause, AI-powered systems can now analyse agreements in minutes, flag risks, extract data, and benchmark terms against precedent or playbooks.
The benefits are obvious: speed, consistency, reduced human error, and improved client service. For in-house teams under pressure to “do more with less,” this is a game-changer. For law firms, AI allows scaling while keeping margins competitive.
As Harvard’s Center on the Legal Profession observed, AI is reshaping firm business models by cutting costs and enhancing efficiency. Read the full article here.
AI for Lawyers
When we talk about AI for lawyers, it goes far beyond reviewing contracts. It includes drafting clauses, conducting due diligence, supporting litigation with precedent analysis, automating compliance checks, and streamlining legal research.
The goal is not to replace legal judgment, but to free lawyers from repetitive tasks so they can focus on strategy, negotiation, and complex risk analysis.
The Law Society of NSW has issued joint guidance with other state regulators, warning that lawyers remain responsible for their advice even when AI assists. Ethical duties of confidentiality, competence, and honesty are unchanged.
ChatGPT for Lawyers
ChatGPT for lawyers has become shorthand for using generative AI in practice. Models like GPT can generate summaries, first-draft memos, alternative clauses, or compare contracts.
Practical uses include:
Summarising complex contracts into plain English.
Drafting alternative clauses for negotiation.
Suggesting positions for playbooks.
Quickly identifying differences between two agreements.
But risks are real. Generative AI can “hallucinate” by producing inaccurate references or legal reasoning. In fact, courts in Australia and overseas have already sanctioned lawyers for filing AI-generated false citations. See the Guardian’s coverage of the Australian case here.
The Law Society’s Responsible Use of AI Guide highlights these risks and provides
practical tips for practitioners. Read the guide (PDF).
AI Guidance Across Australian States
New South Wales, Victoria, and Western Australia (Uniform Law States)
In 2024, the regulators in NSW, Victoria, and WA issued a joint statement on AI in the profession. It emphasises that while AI can improve efficiency, lawyers must uphold duties of confidentiality, competence, and independence. Read the joint statement.
In Victoria, courts have gone further. The Supreme Court and County Court released guidelines titled Responsible Use of AI in Litigation, which apply to both legal practitioners and self-represented litigants. These set out when AI use should be disclosed and warn against over-reliance. See the guidelines here.
The Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner has also issued a statement on AI in legal practice. Read it here.
Queensland
In Queensland, the courts have taken a clear position on generative AI. The Queensland Courts’ official guidance cautions against entering confidential or privileged information into AI systems and notes that litigants must ensure accuracy.
In 2025, the Supreme Court of Queensland issued Practice Direction 5 of 2025, which requires parties to verify the accuracy of references in submissions — a direct response to risks posed by AI-assisted drafting. Details here.
Victoria’s Law Reform Review
The Victorian Law Reform Commission is currently conducting an inquiry into AI use in courts and tribunals, with a report due in October 2025. This review will likely set the benchmark for national reforms. More information here.
Other National Guidance
At the national level, the Law Council of Australia provides a central hub on AI and the legal profession. Visit here.
The Law Institute of Victoria (LIV) also runs an AI Hub and has published an Ethical and Responsible Use of AI Guide.
Why State Differences Matter
Court protocols vary: NSW requires disclosures under Practice Note SC Gen 23, Victoria has litigant guidelines, and Queensland has its own practice directions.
Terminology differs: AI tools must be trained for Australian context, not just US or UK law.
Oversight bodies differ: Each state’s law society or regulator may impose its own guidance.
Judicial approach varies: Some courts encourage responsible use, others take a stricter view.
Practical Advice for Lawyers & In-House Teams
Check local court rules — if you’re in NSW, Victoria, or Queensland, make sure you know the AI practice notes.
Disclose when required — if AI tools are used in preparing court submissions, disclosure may be mandatory.
Secure data — use systems that host data in Australia and protect client confidentiality.
Use AI for the right tasks — summarisation, drafting, or comparison is appropriate; final legal advice still needs a lawyer.
Train your team — AI literacy is essential. Lawyers must know the risks and how to validate outputs.
Final Thoughts
The combination of AI contract review, AI for lawyers, and ChatGPT for lawyers represents one of the biggest shifts in the history of legal practice. These tools allow lawyers to work faster, smarter, and more consistently. But they also introduce new risks, particularly around accuracy, confidentiality, and ethics.
Across Australia, regulators and courts are responding differently, with NSW, Victoria, and Queensland leading the way on practice notes and disclosure requirements. The message is clear: AI can be used, but only under strong professional supervision.
For legal teams, the real question is not if AI should be adopted, but how to implement it responsibly. Those who adopt early, build governance frameworks, and integrate AI into daily workflows will be the ones to set the standard for the future of legal practice in Australia.
Comments