The Supreme Court of Tasmania has issued guidelines on generative AI that apply to every court user, from lawyers to witnesses

Key takeaways

• The guidelines apply to all proceedings in the Court and to all court users, and commenced on 21 October 2026.
• Section 4.3 of the guidelines says AI-generated content "must be checked by a person, not solely by a Gen AI tool".
• Section 4.4 says court users are not required to certify Gen AI use, and that "all court users must disclose the use of Gen AI, if asked".
• For lawyers, the Court says inappropriate use may result in referral to the Legal Profession Board of Tasmania or personal costs orders.

Who and what do the Tasmanian guidelines cover?

The guidelines apply to all proceedings in the Supreme Court of Tasmania and to all court users, which the document says includes lawyers, litigants, witnesses, and other third parties who produce documents to the Court. They apply when a user uses Gen AI to "help create, write, edit, modify or otherwise prepare" a document for use in, or in relation to, court proceedings (section 2.1).

The Court states that any use of Gen AI must sit within existing duties. Section 2.3 lists the duty not to mislead the court or other parties, limits on using information obtained from other parties, responsibility for keeping confidential, suppressed or privileged information from public disclosure, lawyers' legal and professional duties, and the obligations of witnesses and expert witnesses. The guidelines add that the Court's approach "will be regularly reviewed" because the technology is developing rapidly (section 1.5).

What must a user verify before filing?

Section 4.1 says "Any person who uses Gen AI to prepare a document must verify all content before submitting the document to the Court." Section 4.2 defines verifying as checking and making any necessary changes so the details are accurate, relevant, current and applicable to the jurisdiction. It lists five checks:

• facts and evidence referred to are correct and exist;
• cases, legislation, textbooks and articles exist and support the legal propositions stated;
• content is authentic, so that images, video or sound recordings are not modified, enhanced or fabricated;
• documents are concise, without irrelevant material or unnecessary repetition;
• documents are proofread and edited, and AI-generated content is adapted to the case.

Section 4.3 then says AI-generated content "must be checked by a person, not solely by a Gen AI tool", so the guidelines do not forbid AI assistance with checking, only checking done solely by a tool. Section 3.3 adds that a user who files or relies on a document confirms to the Court that its information is accurate and relevant. For affidavits and witness statements, section 3.6 says they "must reflect the person's own knowledge, experience and words", and that expert reports "must contain the expert's own opinion and process of reasoning".

When must use be disclosed or explained?

Section 4.4 says court users are not required to certify Gen AI use in preparing documents. It also says "all court users must disclose the use of Gen AI, if asked", and that "expert witnesses must disclose the use of Gen AI in accordance with their obligations under the Expert Witness Code of Conduct". Section 4.5 says anyone who uses Gen AI to prepare a court document is expected to be able to explain which tool was used, how it was used, and what steps the person took to check the content.

Read together, the guidelines do not require certification of Gen AI use. For court users generally, section 4.4(a) says disclosure "must" follow if asked, and section 4.4(b) separately refers to expert witnesses' disclosure obligations under the Expert Witness Code of Conduct, whose timing we did not verify. The section 4.5 expectation to explain applies to any person who uses Gen AI in preparing a court document, so a record made at the time of drafting is a practical way to meet it. That is our reading, not a rule stated in the document.

What do the guidelines say about confidential information and consequences?

Section 3.8 says court users "should not enter into an AI tool that is not a closed tool" information that is confidential, privileged or private, including information subject to a suppression or non-publication order, or where publication or use is otherwise restricted. Section 3.9 says court users "should, as far as possible, ensure" that such information entered into a closed AI tool will be kept within a secure environment. Appendix A describes closed tools as generally not openly accessible to the public, with information remaining in a controlled environment and controls to reduce privacy and confidentiality risks.

On consequences, section 5.1 says use inconsistent with the guidelines or the Court's orders or directions "may" lead to documents being given less weight or disregarded, adjournments or delays, costs orders, or the case being dismissed. Section 5.2 says for lawyers, inappropriate use may result in referral to the Legal Profession Board of Tasmania or personal costs orders. These are stated possibilities, not fixed penalties.

What should litigators and legal teams do now?

For anyone filing in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, the guidelines are in effect from 21 October 2026. Our suggestions, which go beyond what the guidelines themselves say:

• Build the section 4.2 checklist into the filing sign-off, with a named person confirming each citation, quotation and exhibit exists and supports the point.
• Keep a short log of the Gen AI tool, the task and the checks made, so section 4.5 questions can be answered without reconstruction.
• Separate closed tools from public ones in your tool inventory, and keep suppressed, privileged or client-confidential material out of the latter, consistent with section 3.8.
• Brief self-represented clients and witnesses, since the guidelines apply to them as well, and remind experts of the Expert Witness Code of Conduct.
• Check whether other courts you appear in, such as the Federal Court, have separate Gen AI requirements, because these guidelines apply only to the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

Our pages on the Federal Court practice note and the Administrative Review Tribunal practice direction cover those separate instruments.

What are the key dates and parties?

What we did not verify

What we opened: the eight-page PDF hosted on the Court's asset host, retrieved on 2026-10-25, comprising Circular to Practitioners No. 14 of 2026 (one page, dated 21 October 2026, signed by Registrar Penelope Ikedife) and the Guidelines (seven pages, including Appendices A and B). The file name includes the word "Draft"; the circular itself does not call the guidelines a draft and says they commence on the day of the circular.

What we did not open: any practice direction, rule or order that gives the guidelines legal force, the Expert Witness Code of Conduct, the Court's own web page or any announcement about the guidelines, and the Legal Profession Board of Tasmania's position. Neither the circular nor the guidelines state a rule-making basis, and we rely on the documents' own dates.

What we refuse to claim: that the guidelines are a rule of court or statute, that any sanction has been imposed under them, how the Court will apply them in practice, or that they bind any other Australian court.

Related briefings

• AI Regulation News hub
• Asia-Pacific AI regulation tracker
• Attorneys and AI regulation
• Federal Court of Australia practice note on generative AI
• Administrative Review Tribunal practice direction on generative AI
• Federal Court costs ruling on responsible versus indiscriminate AI use
• NSW Law Society guide to responsible AI use for solicitors