AI-Use Disclosure Clause Assembler for Brisbane Litigation Lawyers: Compliant Disclosure Language for Every Filing
You used a model to summarise a witness statement. Or to tighten a chronology. Or the junior used one — you’re not entirely sure for which paragraphs. The matter is in the Administrative Review Tribunal, with a parallel Federal Court proceeding. Both forums now expect practitioners to disclose AI use where it materially shaped the document, and the wording of that disclosure has to be specific enough to satisfy the tribunal and narrow enough not to over-claim. Drafting the clause by hand on every filing is the kind of administrative drag that quietly gets skipped. The Disclosure Clause Assembler Agent removes the excuse.
The problem
The Federal Court’s General Practice Note on AI (GPN-AI) and the Administrative Review Tribunal’s practice directions both place responsibility on practitioners to be transparent about generative AI use in materials placed before the forum. The exact phrasing required differs: the Federal Court emphasises verification responsibility and disclosure where AI has been used to generate content for filing; the ART’s expert evidence practice direction addresses how AI use intersects with expert reports and supporting materials. The Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules add Rule 19 (candour to the court) on top.
In practice, three things go wrong. First, the disclosure is omitted entirely because the practitioner wasn’t sure it applied. Second, it’s drafted as a generic boilerplate that doesn’t actually describe what AI was used for, which a careful tribunal member will see through. Third, it over-discloses — admitting AI involvement in routine formatting work that wasn’t covered by the practice direction in the first place, and inviting questions that didn’t need to be asked. Each of these creates an avoidable risk of an adverse procedural ruling, a referral to the Queensland Legal Services Commission, or a wasted-costs argument from the other side.
What the AI-Use Disclosure Clause Assembler does
The Disclosure Clause Assembler Agent generates compliant AI-use disclosure clauses tailored to the forum (Federal Court under GPN-AI, ART under the relevant practice direction), the document type (submissions, affidavit, expert report, chronology), and the specific role AI played in producing it (drafting, summarisation, citation suggestion, translation, formatting). The output is a clause you paste into the filing — with a parallel internal record of the inputs that justified the wording, so if the disclosure is later queried, you can reconstruct the reasoning.
The agent does not generate substantive legal content. It assembles disclosure language from a library of clauses mapped to forum-specific requirements, and flags when the AI-use pattern you’ve described falls outside what a short disclosure can reasonably cover (for example, where the model produced primary analysis that should arguably be re-done rather than disclosed).
How it works
- You select the forum (Federal Court, ART, Queensland Supreme Court, other) and the document type being filed.
- You answer a short structured intake: what was the AI tool, what task did it perform, was the output verified, who verified it, and were any citations or factual assertions generated by the model.
- The agent maps your answers against the applicable practice note or direction and selects the clause template that matches your disclosure obligation.
- You receive the drafted disclosure clause, a short rationale explaining which framework provision it satisfies, and any flags where your intake suggests the disclosure alone is insufficient (e.g. unverified citations — at which point the agent recommends running the draft through RuleCheck’s Citation Verification Agent before filing).
- The clause and intake record are saved to a matter-level audit log for later reference.
Why this matters in Brisbane
Brisbane litigation practices routinely run matters across Federal Court, the Administrative Review Tribunal, and the Queensland Supreme Court within the same firm, sometimes within the same team. Each forum is moving at a different pace on AI disclosure expectations, and the language that satisfies one is not automatically appropriate for another. A federal administrative law practice — typical of the work that runs through the ART’s Brisbane registry — will be filing in both federal forums on adjacent matters and cannot afford a disclosure mismatch. The assembler is designed for exactly that cross-forum reality: one intake, forum-correct clause, internal record.
Sources
- Administrative Review Tribunal — Practice Directions and Other Guidance: https://www.art.gov.au/help-and-resources/professionals-and-practitioners/practice-directions-and-other-guidance
- 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
Exegesis capability references:
Join the waitlist
The Disclosure Clause Assembler Agent is in build. We’re scoping pricing (per-filing, per-user monthly, or firm-licence) based on demand from federal-forum practices. Join the waitlist and what we hear from you will shape the tier you sit in.