AI-Use Disclosure Clause Assembler for Melbourne In-House Counsel: Get the Disclosure Wording Right Before Anything Leaves Your Desk
Your team has just briefed external counsel on a matter that’s heading to the Federal Court. You know parts of the brief were drafted with AI assistance. You know the Federal Court’s General Practice Note on AI (GPN-AI) requires disclosure where it applies, and the Administrative Review Tribunal has its own direction. What you don’t have is a clean, defensible piece of disclosure wording that matches the forum, the document type, and your own internal AI governance policy. The Disclosure Clause Assembler is built to remove that gap.
The problem
In-house legal teams in Melbourne are now routinely producing — or commissioning — documents that involve some degree of generative AI assistance. The disclosure obligations are not uniform. The Federal Court’s GPN-AI sets one set of expectations for documents filed in that court. The Administrative Review Tribunal has issued its own direction on the use of generative AI in proceedings before it. State courts are moving at different paces. Your own organisation almost certainly has an internal AI-use policy that says something must be recorded, but probably doesn’t tell you what the clause should say in a witness statement, a contractual recital, a board paper, or a court submission.
The risk is not theoretical. Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rule 19 requires candour to the court. If a disclosure is missing, ambiguous, or materially misleading — for example, claiming “no AI was used” when a model touched the draft — that is a candour problem, not a process problem. For in-house counsel, the same issue can also create a problem under your reporting obligations to the board and audit committee, who increasingly want documented evidence that AI use across the legal function is governed and disclosed consistently.
What the Disclosure Clause Assembler does
The AI-Use Disclosure Clause Assembler generates compliant AI-use disclosure clauses for filings and legal documents, aligned to the Federal Court GPN-AI, the Administrative Review Tribunal’s AI direction, and the Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules. You tell it three things — the forum (or “internal/contractual”), the document type, and the actual nature of the AI assistance used — and it returns a clause drafted to match. The clause is not generated by a large language model at inference time; it’s assembled from a library of pre-drafted, source-linked components, each tied to the specific rule or practice note it satisfies.
The deliverable is a clause you can paste into the document, plus a short rationale that records why this wording was selected for this combination of forum, document type, and AI use. That rationale is what your governance team or external counsel will ask for if the disclosure is ever challenged.
How it works
- You describe the document and the AI use. Forum (Federal Court, ART, state court, internal, contractual), document type (witness statement, submission, expert report, board paper, contract recital), and the actual nature of AI assistance (drafting support, summarisation, citation lookup, translation, none).
- The agent selects the applicable rule set. GPN-AI for Federal Court filings, the ART practice direction for tribunal matters, ASCR Rule 19 candour overlay for any court-facing document, and your organisation’s internal disclosure policy where loaded.
- It assembles the clause from source-linked components. Each phrase in the output traces to a specific rule, practice note paragraph, or internal policy clause.
- It returns the clause plus a rationale. The rationale lists every source the clause is grounded in, so the disclosure is defensible if questioned.
- You archive both with the matter file. The rationale is the audit trail for the disclosure decision.
Why this matters in Melbourne
Melbourne in-house teams sit under the Legal Profession Uniform Law, which has applied in Victoria since 1 July 2015, and the ASCR apply as the Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015. Rule 19 candour obligations bind every solicitor with a practising certificate, including in-house counsel signing court documents or instructing externals who file them. Victorian-headquartered organisations routinely litigate in the Federal Court registry in Melbourne, where GPN-AI applies. The combination — uniform-law ASCR obligations plus a Federal Court practice note — is exactly the cross-framework problem the Disclosure Clause Assembler is built to handle.
Sources
- 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 — Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Practice Note (GPN-AI): https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/law-and-practice/practice-documents/practice-notes/gpn-ai
- Federal Court of Australia — Rules, Acts & Regulations: https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/law-and-practice/rules-acts-and-regulations
Exegesis capability references:
Join the waitlist
We’re scoping access tiers around the way in-house teams actually use disclosure clauses — per-document, per-seat, or as part of a wider RuleCheck firm licence. Join the waitlist and tell us what you need; the early conversations shape how the tiers work.