Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Generative AI: Opportunity, Caution, and Good Practice for Australian Barristers

20 October 2025

By Jo Wade, Senior Director of Product Management, LexisNexis®
With contributions from Seeta Bodke, Amanda Hatcher, Nina Packman, Rupert Robey, Jo Wade, and the LexisNexis team.

At this year’s Australian Bar Association Conference, "Crossroads," I gave a presentation on the opportunities and responsibilities that Generative AI presents for the legal profession. The goal was to provide an overview of Artificial Intelligence (AI), suggest how it can be useful to barristers in their practice, and discuss the importance of cautious and effective use.

If you’d like to read the full presentation and see the slide deck, complete the form below. The references listed at the end of this article can also provide you with additional information.

Introduction

The process of upholding justice and truth in today’s dynamic legal environment is experiencing a disruptive wave of change. Understanding the capabilities and limitations of AI tools is, I believe, essential for all legal professionals.

Generative AI is no longer a futuristic concept—it’s a practical tool that many barristers across Australia are integrating into their daily practice.

The rapid uptake of general-purpose Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT-5, CoPilot, Claude, and DeepSeek is impacting the legal profession in multiple ways, and so Australian barristers are finding themselves at a critical juncture.

What Is Generative AI and Why Does It Matter to Barristers?

While there is no generally agreed-upon definition of artificial intelligence (AI), broadly speaking, AI is the programming of machines to behave in ways that mimic human intelligence.

The Hon. Justice Needham of the Federal Court of Australia, in a recent paper1, referred to the NASA definition of AI: “the use of computer programs to undertake complex tasks usually done by humans – reasoning, decision making, creating”.2

The practice of law is very much about language – understanding, synthesising, creating, communicating. Generative AI technology can produce new content based on very large amounts of training data and can output text, images, video, audio, and even code—based on vast datasets. Generative AI ‘chatbots’ can even simulate human conversation to provide a response based on your query.

It’s worth understanding that a Large Language Model (LLM) is a deep learning model that is trained to analyse large-scale data. It can help you to understand and produce coherent text in response to prompts, which are instructions or inputs you would like the LLM to perform.

The rise of LLMs like ChatGPT, Claude, and BERT has made AI even more accessible. These models excel at understanding and generating human language, which is an essential skill in the practice of law.

Unlike extractive AI, which retrieves existing information, generative AI creates new outputs in response to prompts. For barristers, this means there are tools available that can help draft memos, summarise case law, build chronologies, and even suggest legal arguments based on trusted datasets such as LexisNexis content.

What Do Barristers Need to Know About Agentic AI?

A newer technological development is Agentic AI—systems that act autonomously, plan tasks, and adapt to user needs. These tools can break down complex legal queries, seek clarification, and refine responses before presenting them.

For barristers, this can mean even more accurate legal research, better document drafting, and incredible time savings. For example, the complex task of compiling a timeline can now be completed in a fraction of the time that it currently takes.

Cautionary Tales and Examples of AI Misuse in Australian Courts

Despite its benefits, AI misuse has led to serious consequences. Some Australian courts have seen submissions with fabricated cases and unverifiable references. For example,

  • Luck v Secretary, Services Australia, where a non-existent case was included, and
  • LJY v Occupational Therapy Board of Australia, where a non-existent case was included, with the tribunal even using ChatGPT to generate a legal overview.

Recent examples of legal practitioner failures and failures to provide expert evidence may include,

  • Kohls v Elison, which included non-existent academic references.
  • Valu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, which referenced AI-generated case law that was unverifiable, and
  • A case recently before The Hon Justice Elliott in the Supreme Court of Victoria – DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v GR [2025] VSC 490, where submissions in a murder case included fake quotes and non-existent case judgements generated by AI.

Quoting from the judgment of the Hon Justice Elliott: “counsel must take full and ultimate responsibility for any submissions made to the court. To this end, it is not acceptable for artificial intelligence to be used unless the product of that use is independently and thoroughly verified. The same may be said for solicitors responsible for producing or filing court documents."3

A Broad Summary of Practice Notes and Guidelines on the Use of AI by the Legal Profession

In response to these failures, several states have issued guidance and/or Practice Notes on the use of Generative AI in litigation, while some States and Territories are yet to do so. This list will only continue to grow.

  • NSW prohibits AI-generated affidavits and witness statements but allows preparatory use under strict conditions.
  • Victoria requires that final documents reflect the witness’s own words and knowledge.
  • The Federal Court of Australia has adopted a “proceed-with-caution” approach, reminding practitioners of their ultimate responsibility for all submissions. The Federal Court of Australia is also considering the development of guidance on the use of generative AI in litigation.

What Are the Best Use Cases of Generative AI for Australian Barristers?

Barristers are already finding value in AI across several areas:

  • Legal Research: AI accelerates the process of identifying relevant authorities, summarising case law, and refining search terms.
  • Document Analysis: AI helps sift through large volumes of disclosure material, identify contradictions, and build chronologies.
  • Drafting Support: While caution is needed, AI can assist in preparing memos, submissions, and even affidavits—especially in the early stages.
  • Reviewing Affidavits: AI can check for compliance, grammar, hearsay, and cross-reference exhibits and dates.

What are the Main Considerations for Barristers When Choosing AI Tools?

Not all AI tools are created equal, and not all are well-suited to the legal profession. Barristers should evaluate tools based on:

  • Privacy: Are your inputs used to train the model? Is your data stored securely?
  • Security: Does the provider use best-practice encryption and compliance standards?
  • Sovereignty: Where is your data stored and processed?
  • Accuracy: Are responses grounded in curated legal content? Can citations be verified?
  • Ethical Frameworks: Does the provider follow responsible AI principles?
  • Is the AI you’re using built for the legal profession? Legal-specific AI tools trained on authoritative legal content include citation verification and are designed with privacy and security at their core.

Learn more about Lexis+ AI® with Protégé™ – a solution specifically for the legal profession, trained on authoritative LexisNexis legal content.

Final Thoughts

Generative AI offers transformative potential for barristers—but only when used responsibly. The key is to treat AI as a supplement to professional judgment, not a substitute. General-purpose tools like ChatGPT may be useful for admin tasks, but pose risks when used for legal drafting or research.

With proper safeguards, training, and ethical awareness, barristers can harness Generative AI to enhance their practice while upholding the integrity of the legal system.

Author Bio

Jo Wade
Senior Director of Product Management, LexisNexis Australia

Jo Wade leads innovation in legal technology at LexisNexis, with a focus on AI-driven solutions for legal professionals. With over 15 years of experience in product strategy and development, Jo is passionate about empowering lawyers with tools that enhance accuracy, efficiency, and ethical practice. She regularly collaborates with barristers, law firms, and courts to ensure LexisNexis products meet the evolving needs of the legal industry.

To view the full presentation and slide deck, enter your details below.

1Hon. Justice Needham of the Federal Court of Australia, `AI and the Courts in 2025: Where are we, and how did we get here?’, 2025 at [8]; a paper delivered at the NSW State Library in the 2025 Judges Series hosted by the Commercial Law Association of Australia. This paper can be accessed at: https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/digital-law-library/judges-speeches/justice-needham/needham-j-20250627
2NASA, ‘What is Artificial Intelligence?’, 2024. This article can be accessed at: https://www.nasa.gov/what-is-artificial-intelligence/
3Director of Public Prosecutions v GR [2025] VSC 490 at [80] per Elliott J.
4New South Wales:

Queensland:

Victoria

Cross-jurisdictional:

Enter your details to view the full whitepaper.