The South Australian Courts have released long anticipated Guidelines for the use of generative artificial intelligence (“Gen AI”). The timing is no coincidence, following recent missteps by legal practitioners using Gen AI which have highlighted both its growing appeal and its very real risks.
We break down what these new Guidelines mean in practice.
What is Generative AI
The Guidelines adopt a broad and non-exhaustive definition of Gen AI. In short, Gen AI refers to artificial intelligence systems capable of creating content, including text, images, audio and video in response to user prompts. Common examples of Gen AI websites and applications include Chat GPT, Microsoft Copilot, Gemini and Grok.
Importantly, the Courts recognise that Gen AI technology will continue to evolve and accordingly are framed with flexibility in mind, acknowledging that new tools and applications will continue to emerge.
Why are lawyers using Gen AI
Many legal practitioners are already experimenting with Gen AI, with common uses including:
drafting submissions and pleadings;
summarising large volumes of documents;
reviewing documentary evidence; and
supporting research tasks.
When used responsibly, Gen AI can save time, reduce costs and improve efficiency. However, its growing use raises a critical question, how do practitioners balance these benefits against their professional and ethical obligations?
The key takeaway
The central message of the Guidelines is clear, if you use Gen AI, you remain fully responsible for the output. It is the legal practitioner’s responsibility to verify all Gen AI output for accuracy.
Any material produced with the assistance of Gen AI must not breach a practitioner’s existing duties to the Court. Gen AI is a tool, not a substitute for professional skill.
Importantly, the Courts have not prohibited its use but rather acknowledged the potential benefits such as increased quality and efficiency and improved access to justice. A legal practitioner who uses Gen AI does not need to disclose such to the Courts, but they should be in the position to inform a judicial officer about its use if questioned.
When do the Guidelines apply
The Guidelines will apply to all steps taken from 1 January 2026 in the Supreme Court, District Court, Magistrates Court, Youth Court and Environment, Resources and Development Court. It is anticipated that the relevant court rules will be updated to incorporate the Guidelines.
Understanding the risks
The Guidelines outline several risks that legal practitioners must actively manage when using Gen AI, including (but not limited to):
the unlawful disclosure of confidential information by providing data to Gen AI providers;
potential intellectual property infringements;
unlawful recordings, particularly where Gen AI use is not disclosed; and
hallucinations, including fabricated facts, cases or citations.
The Courts have cautioned against using Gen AI for the preparation or review of evidence, including expert reports. The Guidelines emphasise that Gen AI use in these contexts requires especially careful consideration and may often be inappropriate.
Practical guidance, not just warnings
Legal practitioners using Gen AI do not need to panic. The Guidelines include a series of practical case studies designed to assist legal practitioners in assessing whether and how Gen AI can be used appropriately in different scenarios.
The Court’s enforcement powers
Where the inappropriate use of Gen AI is suspected, the Courts have broad powers to investigate and address any conduct that may adversely affect the administration of justice.
Practitioners may also face further consequences for breaching their duties and professional obligations.
Final thoughts
Gen AI is here to stay, and the South Australian Courts have made it clear that responsible use is both permitted and, in some cases, encouraged. The challenge for legal practitioners is to use these tools thoughtfully, transparently and with rigorous oversight.
This publication has been prepared for general guidance on matters of interest only and does not constitute professional legal advice. You should not act upon the information contained in this publication without obtaining specific professional legal advice. No representation or warranty (express or implied) is given as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this publication and to the extent permitted by law, Cowell Clarke does not accept or assume any liability, responsibility or duty of care for any consequences of you or anyone else acting or refraining to act in relation on the information contained in this publication or for any decision based on it.
