How to use this law firm AI policy template
Read the eleven clauses once, strike what does not apply to your practice, and fill in the bracketed names and Schedule A, the list of tools your firm has approved. Then check it against the guidance from your own law society and insurer, which the sections after the template set out. Treat it as a starting point to adapt to your practice.
Law firm AI policy template
Copy the eleven clauses below into your own document. It is written for a firm of one to twenty people. For a shorter policy that only covers transcription and note takers, use our cross-industry AI note taking policy template.
See what a finished legal attendance note looks like.
Pick your line of work and we'll send a sample note written from a mocked call. No account, no card, and nothing from your own client files.
One sample note, plus the occasional CallNote update. Unsubscribe any time by replying. We never ask for your call recordings or client files.
Where each clause comes from
No Australian statute says a law firm must have an AI policy. The clauses come from duties solicitors already have, and from what regulators and courts have said about meeting those duties when AI is used. We read each source below at the publisher's own site in October 2026.
| Clause | Source | What the source says |
|---|---|---|
| 1 and 2. Scope and approved tools | Joint statement of the Law Society of NSW, Legal Practice Board of WA and Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner, 6 December 2024 | Lawyers using AI should consider 'clear, risk-based policies' setting out which AI tools the practice uses, who can use them, for what purposes and with what information. |
| 3. Confidentiality and privilege | Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules (ASCR) r 9.1. Joint statement. Queensland Law Society Guidance Statement No. 37 | Rule 9.1 stops a solicitor disclosing a client's confidential information outside the practice, subject to r 9.2. The joint statement says lawyers 'cannot safely enter confidential, sensitive or privileged client information into public AI chatbots/copilots (like ChatGPT), or any other public tools'. Guidance Statement 37 says to avoid a tool whose user agreement does not address data use and model training. |
| 4. Client consent and disclosure | Guidance Statement 37, part 4.3. Joint statement | QLS says clients should be advised, where feasible, if an AI tool will be used on their work. Disclosure in the retainer agreement or engagement letter may often be enough, and more is needed where a tool does substantial work. The joint statement recommends making the policy available to clients on request. |
| 5. Verification of output | ASCR rr 4.1.3 and 4.1.4. Joint statement. Supreme Court of Victoria Practice Note SC Gen 25 | A solicitor must deliver legal services competently and diligently and keep their professional independence. The joint statement says lawyers must be able to personally verify AI-prepared documents, and must actually do so. SC Gen 25 says one AI tool cannot be used to confirm content generated by another. |
| 6. Court documents | ASCR r 19.1 and the practice notes in the next section | A solicitor must not deceive or knowingly or recklessly mislead the court. |
| 8. Record keeping | Joint statement. Federal Circuit and Family Court Practice Direction PD-AI, paragraph 4.11 | The joint statement asks lawyers to properly record when and how AI was used in a matter, and to bill only for the legal work done. PD-AI says the person responsible for a document should be able to explain whether AI was used, what tool, and how the output was checked. |
| 9. Supervision and training | ASCR r 37.1. Guidance Statement 37, part 4.4 | A solicitor with designated responsibility for a matter must exercise reasonable supervision over everyone working on it. QLS compares it to supervising a junior employee: close supervision at first, then regular auditing. |
| 10. Incidents | ASCR r 19.2. Guidance Statement 37, part 4.4 | A misleading statement to a court must be corrected as soon as possible. QLS says it may be prudent to check with your professional indemnity insurer that your intended use is covered. |
QLS AI policy, Lawcover AI policy and the NSW Law Society: what each has published
Use the template or guidance from your own jurisdiction or insurer first, and use this article to fill gaps.
| Body | What it has published | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Queensland Law Society | A Template AI Use Policy (April 2023), Guidance Statement No. 37 on AI in legal practice (updated 24 October 2024), a template warning to clients about their own use of AI tools (April 2026), and an AI selection and use checklist (February 2026). | The template is listed on the QLS artificial intelligence resources page. We could not open the document itself, so we do not describe its contents. Guidance Statement 37 says it has no legislative or statutory effect and represents a standard of good practice. The checklist is a joint initiative with the Law Institute of Victoria and the law societies of SA, WA, the ACT, the NT and Tasmania. |
| Law Society of NSW | The joint statement of 6 December 2024 and an AI page for legal professionals. | The AI page refers to a Sample AI Policy for Law Firms and says it is a Lawcover resource made available with permission. |
| Lawcover | The Sample AI Policy for Law Firms referred to on the Law Society of NSW page. | We could not open the document itself, so we do not describe its contents. Ask Lawcover or the Law Society for the current version. |
| Legal Practitioners' Liability Committee (Victoria) | An article on the limitations and risks of using AI in legal practice (page last updated 12 June 2026). | It recommends internal usage policies, staff training, supervising staff who use AI tools, and not entering client or confidential information into AI tools. |
Court documents: what the AI practice notes say
Clause 6 tells the solicitor to read the current instrument, because they differ and they change. These are the four we read. The Queensland Law Society's AI page lists more courts and tribunals.
| Court | Instrument | Main points for a firm policy |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court of NSW | Practice Note SC Gen 23, Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence. Issued 28 January 2025, commenced 3 February 2025. | Generative AI must not be used to generate the content of affidavits, witness statements or character references, and each must include a disclosure that it was not used. Submissions prepared with it must state that every citation has been verified as existing, accurate and relevant. Expert reports need prior leave. |
| Federal Court of Australia | Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Practice Note (GPN-AI), 16 April 2026. | A person must disclose AI use if the Court requires it, and where generative AI was used to summarise or analyse information a witness relies on. Everyone is expected to be able to say what tool was used, how and for what purpose. |
| Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia | Practice Direction PD-AI, Use of Artificial Intelligence, issued 29 May 2026. | No general duty to disclose AI use unless asked, other than for expert witnesses. Material obtained by subpoena, discovery or under a suppression order must not go into a generative AI tool unless it stays in a closed environment under enforceable confidentiality terms and is not used for training. The ban on recording and transcription devices in proceedings includes any generative AI tool. |
| Supreme Court of Victoria | Practice Note SC Gen 25, The Use of Artificial Intelligence by Court Users, issued and commenced 14 May 2026. | Content produced using AI must be verified with meaningful human control. Court users must be prepared to identify which parts of a court document were produced using AI and explain how they were verified. Lawyers who rely on unverified AI output may be referred to the regulator and face personal costs orders. |
AI note takers and recording in a law firm
Clause 7 gets its own place in the policy because a note taker hears everything said to a client, including the privileged parts. Three issues sit behind it.
- Consent. Recording a private conversation generally needs everyone's consent in NSW, WA, SA, Tasmania and the ACT. Victoria, Queensland and the Northern Territory allow a party to record. The federal Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 applies separately. Telling everyone and waiting for a yes on every call avoids working out the state each time. See is it legal to record phone calls in Australia.
- Privilege and confidentiality. A transcript of legal advice held by a provider whose terms allow wide use of your data is hard to square with keeping the advice confidential. See AI note takers and legal professional privilege.
- Accuracy. An attendance note may be evidence years later, so an unchecked draft is a risk. See can lawyers use AI for file notes in Australia and our comparison of AI note takers for law firms.
What clause 8 looks like on a file
This fictional attendance note shows the record clause 8 asks for. The last section is the part most firms leave out.
- Consent to transcription
Tom reminded Priya at the start of the call that the firm transcribes calls to prepare attendance notes, as set out in the costs agreement. Priya agreed. No audio recording was kept.
- Instructions
Priya's landlord has sent a notice claiming $18,400 in unpaid outgoings for the shop she leases. She disputes the amount and wants to stay in the premises. She does not want to start court proceedings at this stage.
- Advice given
Tom advised that the lease requires the landlord to give an audited outgoings statement before recovering a shortfall, and that none has been provided. He recommended a letter disputing the claim and asking for the statement. He explained the cost of the letter and that the landlord may still issue a breach notice.
- Next steps
- Tom to send a draft letter to Priya by 9 October 2026.
- Priya to send the last two years of outgoings invoices by 8 October 2026.
- How this note and the draft letter were prepared
This note was drafted by an approved AI tool from the call transcript and read in full by Tom Achterberg on 6 October 2026. One correction was made: the claimed amount was changed from $14,800 to $18,400. The draft letter was prepared by Tom without AI. Time recorded: 25 minutes for the call and 6 minutes to check the note.
Where CallNote fits in a law firm AI policy
CallNote is one tool that could go in Schedule A, for one task: turning a call or meeting transcript that already exists into an attendance note in your firm's format. We never record calls, never join a meeting as a bot and never store call audio. Data is hosted in Sydney, encrypted, and not used to train AI. After review the note is sealed with a checksum and locked, later changes are append-only amendments, and there is a full audit log, which helps with clause 8.
The transcript comes from your phone or meeting system, so clause 7 still applies to that system, and a solicitor still reads every note. CallNote delivers notes to Clio, HubSpot and Microsoft Dynamics 365. It has no native connection to LEAP, Smokeball or Actionstep, so there the note goes to the matter by PDF or copy and paste. More at CallNote for law firms, or check your current notes with the law firm file note compliance checklist.
Common questions
Does an Australian law firm need an AI policy?
No statute requires one by name. The Law Society of NSW, the Legal Practice Board of WA and the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner said in a joint statement on 6 December 2024 that lawyers using AI should consider clear, risk-based policies covering which tools are used, by whom, for what and with what information. A written policy is the simplest way to show how the firm meets its confidentiality, competence and supervision duties.
Is there a QLS AI policy template?
Yes. The Queensland Law Society publishes a Template AI Use Policy dated April 2023 on its artificial intelligence resources page, alongside Guidance Statement No. 37 on AI in legal practice (updated 24 October 2024), a template warning to clients about their own AI use (April 2026) and an AI selection and use checklist (February 2026).
Is there a Lawcover AI policy or a NSW Law Society AI policy?
The Law Society of NSW's AI page for legal professionals lists a Sample AI Policy for Law Firms and notes that it is a Lawcover resource made available with permission. The Law Society also co-issued the 6 December 2024 joint statement on AI in legal practice. Ask Lawcover or the Law Society for the current sample policy.
What should a law firm AI use policy include?
Who and what it covers, the approved tools and who approves new ones, a ban on putting confidential or privileged client information into public AI tools, how clients are told, a rule that a qualified person checks all output, rules for court documents and for note takers, what is recorded on the file, supervision and training, what to do when something goes wrong, and a review date.
Can lawyers use ChatGPT for client work in Australia?
Not a public or personal account with client information. The December 2024 joint statement says lawyers cannot safely enter confidential, sensitive or privileged client information into public AI chatbots such as ChatGPT or any other public tools. Commercial tools may be used with client information only after carefully reviewing the contract terms to make sure the information is kept secure.
Do lawyers have to tell the court they used AI?
It depends on the court. The Supreme Court of NSW requires affidavits, witness statements and character references to include a disclosure that generative AI was not used to generate them. The Federal Court requires disclosure when the Court asks and where AI was used to summarise or analyse information a witness relies on. The Federal Circuit and Family Court has no general disclosure duty unless asked, other than for experts. Read the current practice note before filing.