Ethics & professional rules
Do AI tools comply with the Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules?
AI tools are not compliant or non-compliant in themselves — the Rules bind you, not the software. The Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules require competence, confidentiality, honesty and candour to the court, and proper supervision, and those duties apply to how you use AI. Used with verification of output, safeguards for client data and supervision, AI use is consistent with the Rules. The obligations sit with the solicitor.
The Rules bind the solicitor, not the tool
There is no standalone AI rule to comply with. The existing duties that govern all of your work simply apply to a new tool — in the same way they apply to a precedent bank, a paralegal's draft, or an external service.
So the right question is not whether the software is compliant, but whether your use of it meets the duties you already owe.
The duties that matter most for AI
Competence and diligence mean you verify output before relying on it. Confidentiality means you vet how the tool handles client data. Candour means you do not mislead the court with unchecked material. Supervision means AI output gets the same scrutiny as a junior's work.
Staying within the Rules
Verify every output, choose tools with sound data handling, supervise what the AI produces, and follow any court directions on disclosing AI-assisted material. This is general information rather than advice on your matter — confirm the current Rules and any practice directions in your jurisdiction.
Frequently asked questions
Is there a specific rule about AI for Australian solicitors?
Not a standalone rule — the existing conduct duties apply to AI as to any tool. Separately, some courts have issued practice notes on disclosing AI-assisted material, so check the directions of the court you are before.
Who is responsible if the AI gets it wrong?
You are, professionally, for what you file and advise. Verification of AI output is your duty under the competence and diligence rules; it cannot be delegated to the software.
Can a firm be disciplined over AI use?
For failing the underlying duties — such as filing unverified, fabricated citations — yes. Not for using AI responsibly with verification, data safeguards and supervision.
See how Quillio handles this in practice
AI built for Australian and New Zealand law — a citation on every answer, client content stored in Australia, and a free trial so you can test it on your own files.