AI-Use Disclosure Clause Assembler for Perth Boutique Firms: Get the AI-Use Wording Right Before You File

You run a six-lawyer firm in West Perth. A junior used an LLM to summarise a witness statement last week; a paralegal used another to draft background sections of a Federal Court submission this morning. Both are filings-bound. The Federal Court’s GPN-AI and the Administrative Review Tribunal’s practice directions both expect AI use to be disclosed where it bears on the document — and the wording isn’t something you can copy from a precedent bank, because the disclosure has to describe what was actually done. You don’t have a compliance officer. You have a filing deadline. The Disclosure Clause Assembler is built for this gap.

The problem

Boutique firms feel the AI-disclosure obligation more acutely than the big end of town. There is no internal precedents team to maintain a clause library, no risk partner to sign off wording, and no time to draft a tailored disclosure from scratch for every filing. The Federal Court’s General Practice Note on the use of generative AI (GPN-AI) sets expectations around practitioner responsibility and, in defined circumstances, disclosure. The Administrative Review Tribunal publishes practice directions and guidance covering use of AI in proceedings before it, particularly around expert evidence. The Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules — Rule 19 on candour to the court — sit underneath both.

The risk isn’t only non-disclosure. It’s wrong disclosure: a clause that overstates the AI’s role, understates it, or describes a use the practitioner didn’t actually authorise. Any of those can be worse than silence.

What the AI-Use Disclosure Clause Assembler does

The Disclosure Clause Assembler is a focused agent that produces compliant AI-use disclosure clauses for filings, calibrated against the Federal Court GPN-AI and the ART’s expert evidence practice direction. You describe what the AI did — drafted, summarised, translated, structured, suggested authorities, none of the above — and the assembler returns disclosure wording suitable for inclusion in the filing, in a covering letter, or in an expert’s report annexure. Where disclosure is not required under the relevant framework, it tells you that too, with the rule reference.

The agent doesn’t generate substantive legal content. It generates the procedural wording that surrounds it.

How it works

1. Select the forum and filing type — Federal Court submission, ART expert report, ART statement of reasons, interlocutory affidavit, etc. The applicable framework loads automatically.
2. Describe the AI use — pick from a structured checklist (drafting assistance, summarisation, citation suggestion, translation, transcription, none) and add any free-text qualifiers (model name, whether output was verified, who verified it).
3. The assembler maps your inputs to the disclosure obligation — citing the relevant clause of GPN-AI or the ART practice direction, and flags any mismatch (e.g. a use that triggers disclosure you haven’t ticked).
4. Receive the clause — ready-to-paste wording plus a short rationale showing which framework provision the clause responds to.
5. Archive the rationale — the assembler emits a markdown audit note for the matter file, so you can show why the clause reads as it does if it’s ever questioned.

Why this matters in Perth

Perth’s legal market is dominated by boutique and mid-tier firms servicing resources, construction, and administrative-law work — much of which lands in the Federal Court or the ART. Migration and NDIS practitioners in particular file in the ART on tight timelines, often with expert reports attached. The ART’s practice directions on expert evidence set expectations about how reports are prepared and what must be disclosed about their preparation; where AI tools have been used in drafting, summarising, or translating material that feeds the report, that has to be reflected in the disclosure. A boutique firm running ten ART matters concurrently cannot afford to redraft disclosure wording from scratch each time, and cannot afford to get it wrong.

WA practitioners are also subject to the Legal Profession Uniform Law conduct rules, which mirror ASCR Rule 19 on candour. The disclosure obligation is not theoretical.

Sources

• Federal Court of Australia — Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Practice Note (GPN-AI): https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/law-and-practice/practice-documents/practice-notes/gpn-ai
• Administrative Review Tribunal — Practice directions and other guidance: https://www.art.gov.au/help-and-resources/professionals-and-practitioners/practice-directions-and-other-guidance
• Law Council of Australia — Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules: https://lawcouncil.au/policy-agenda/regulation-of-the-profession-and-ethics/australian-solicitors-conduct-rules
• Federal Court of Australia — Rules, Acts & Regulations: https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/law-and-practice/rules-acts-and-regulations

Exegesis capability references:

• Disclosure Clause Assembler Agent spec
• RuleCheck by Exegesis (open-source citation verifier)

Join the waitlist

Join the waitlist — be first to access the Disclosure Clause Assembler when it opens to Perth boutique firms

We’re scoping access tiers for boutique firms (under 10 lawyers) separately from larger firm pricing. Join the waitlist and tell us what your filing mix looks like — Federal Court, ART, state Supreme — and we’ll calibrate the launch tier accordingly.