AI-Use Disclosure Clause Assembler for Brisbane In-House Counsel: Get the Disclosure Wording Right Before External Counsel Files

External counsel sends through the draft submission at 4pm Friday. The covering email says a paralegal used a model to summarise the witness statements and tighten the chronology. You need to sign off — or, more accurately, you need a clean AI-use disclosure clause attached to the filing that satisfies the Federal Court’s GPN-AI expectations and your own outside counsel guidelines, without inventing language that overstates or understates what was actually done. There is no Queensland Law Society template that fits this exactly. The AI-Use Disclosure Clause Assembler is built for the moment you are in.

The problem

The Federal Court of Australia’s General Practice Note on the use of generative AI (GPN-AI) requires practitioners to address AI use in court documents where it is material. The Administrative Review Tribunal has issued directions on AI use in materials before it. The Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules — the agreed professional conduct standard adopted in Queensland since June 2012 — require solicitors to be candid with the court (Rule 19) and to act in their client’s best interests (Rule 4). Disclosure that is vague, boilerplate, or misaligned with what the AI tool actually did creates two distinct exposures: a candour problem under the ASCR if the disclosure misrepresents the AI’s role, and a procedural problem under GPN-AI if the disclosure does not match what the court expects. For in-house counsel sitting between the business, external firms, and the court, the practical question is: what specific sentences go into the filing?

What the AI-Use Disclosure Clause Assembler does

The Disclosure Clause Assembler is a structured generator that takes inputs about how AI was used on a matter — the tool category (drafting assistance, summarisation, translation, citation lookup), the document type (pleading, submission, witness statement, expert report, ART application), the jurisdiction (Federal Court, ART, Queensland Supreme Court), and the level of human review applied — and produces disclosure clause options drafted against GPN-AI language and ASCR candour obligations. The deliverable is a short menu of disclosure clauses (typically two or three variants per matter) with a rationale showing which framework requirement each clause addresses, ready for in-house counsel to mark up and send back to external counsel or paste directly into a filing.

How it works

1. Intake the matter facts. You complete a short structured form: forum, document type, AI tool category, scope of AI use, and human verification steps already taken.
2. Map to framework requirements. The agent matches the inputs against GPN-AI disclosure expectations and ASCR Rules 19 (candour to the court) and 4 (client’s best interests), and flags any ART-specific requirements where the filing is bound for the Administrative Review Tribunal.
3. Assemble clause variants. Two to three disclosure clauses are drafted, varying in specificity (minimal, standard, detailed) so you can match the disclosure to the materiality of the AI use.
4. Return a rationale. Each clause is paired with a short note explaining which framework provision it addresses and what it does not cover, so the choice between variants is documented.
5. Export. Output is markdown or plain text, ready for the filing draft and for the matter file.

Why this matters in Brisbane

Queensland adopted the Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules in June 2012, which means Brisbane-based in-house counsel reviewing external counsel work product are looking at the same candour, competence, and client-best-interest obligations as their southern colleagues. Federal Court matters filed from the Brisbane registry sit under GPN-AI in exactly the same terms. The practical gap is workflow: in-house teams typically receive AI-touched drafts from multiple external firms, each with its own house style for disclosure language (or none at all). The Disclosure Clause Assembler exists so the in-house reviewer is not the one inventing the wording at 4pm — and so the disclosure attached to a Brisbane-filed matter is traceable to a specific framework provision rather than to a paralegal’s best guess.

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
• 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
• RuleCheck (open-source citation verifier by Exegesis): https://github.com/andrefabre/rulecheck

Join the waitlist

Join the waitlist — be the first to know when the AI-Use Disclosure Clause Assembler opens for Brisbane in-house counsel teams

Access tiers and pricing are being scoped now. Joining the waitlist gets you early access and a direct line into how the disclosure clause library is structured — what forums you file in, what tool categories your business uses, and what disclosure language your outside counsel guidelines already require.