Your junior lawyer has used a generative artificial intelligence (AI) tool to draft submissions for a Supreme Court hearing. The draft looks polished. But if in several months’ time, the Court asks which parts were produced by AI and how each citation was checked, could you answer that question?
From 14 May 2026, Supreme Court Practice Note SC GEN 25 governs AI use by everyone who files documents in the Supreme Court of Victoria. It permits AI in the preparation of Court documents if the Practice Notice is complied with. Importantly, practitioners are now on notice that the Court may direct them to provide information about documents they have produced with the assistance of AI (paragraph 7.5) and identify which portions a tool produced and explain how each was verified (paragraph 7.6). A file with no verification record may struggle to answer to that question.
The verification duty
A court user is responsible for the content of a Court document, whether or not AI was used (paragraph 6.1). Content produced with AI must be verified with meaningful human control (paragraph 7.1). The user must ensure it is current, complete, accurate and applicable to the jurisdiction (paragraph 7.2).
What counts as verification
Where AI has been used to produce material submitted to the Court, to ensure its accuracy, Court users should:
- Fact-check and proofread the material, then edit and adapt it to the situation
- Confirm that every reference to case law, legislation, a textbook or an article exists and stands for the legal position attributed to it. Check extracts and quotes are accurate and attributable to the correct source
- Check against a source known to be accurate, such as AustLII for cases or the authorised legislation site
- Never verify against another AI tool. One GenAI tool cannot verify the output of another (paragraph 7.4)
What to do next
Experienced AI users are already verifying in accordance with paragraph 7.4. What they might not be doing is keeping a record of how they did so.
What should that note contain?
- For each Court document produced with the assistance of AI, note the tool used and the specific portions of the document it produced
- Check every cited case, statute, quote and proposition against a source known to be accurate, never against another AI tool
- Record the verification on the file before the document is settled, not after a direction from the Court arrives
- For affidavits and witness statements, confirm the final document is sworn or affirmed in a form that reflects the deponent's own knowledge and words (paragraph 6.11)
- For expert reports, confirm compliance with the Expert Witness Code of Conduct for civil trials or Practice Note SC CR 3 for criminal trials (paragraph 6.12)
Well-run litigation teams build this verification process into their workflow for settling documents, including being clear in specifying whose responsibility it is to verify the output (and remember the lessons from this article when doing so).
Suggested wording for a file note evidencing verification
> Matter and document: [ ] > Tool used: [name and version] > Portions produced using AI: [identify by paragraph, heading or section] > Verification: authorities and quotes checked against [source known to be accurate, for example AustLII or the authorised legislation site]; key propositions confirmed against primary sources; content edited and adapted to this matter. No AI tool used to verify another AI tool. > Verified by: [name]. Date: [ ] |
Why verification (and the ability to prove it happens) matters
A Court document filed with inaccuracies can attract a costs order (paragraph 6.4). Reliance on unverified AI output can lead to referral to the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner, and a personal costs order (paragraph 6.7).
The Court can also direct a Court user to explain how a document was produced (paragraph 7.5). It can then require the AI-produced portions to be identified, and the verification of each explained (paragraph 7.6). A file note like the above will assist practitioners to comply with that direction.
