Expert AI Attestation Agent for Brisbane Litigation Lawyers: Document Your Expert’s AI Use Before the Tribunal Asks
Your medical expert finalised their report on Sunday. They mentioned, in passing, that they “used ChatGPT to help structure the literature review section”. The hearing is in three weeks. The Administrative Review Tribunal’s expert evidence practice direction expects experts to be candid about how their opinion was formed — and you now need a defensible written record of exactly what tools were used, on which sections, for what purpose, and whether the expert independently verified each AI-touched passage. The Expert AI Attestation Agent generates that record in the form the Tribunal expects.
The problem
Experts giving evidence in ART proceedings — medical specialists, valuers, engineers, forensic accountants — are increasingly using generative AI somewhere in their workflow: literature scans, draft structuring, summarising prior reports, language editing. Most have no system for recording it. When the opposing party or the Tribunal asks how the opinion was formed, an ad-hoc email exchange between solicitor and expert is a poor substitute for a structured attestation that maps tool use to specific sections of the report.
The Administrative Review Tribunal’s practice directions and guidance for professionals and practitioners set expectations for expert evidence, including the expert’s duty to assist the Tribunal and to disclose the basis of their opinion. Failing to surface AI use early creates two downstream risks: (1) the expert’s credibility is challenged mid-hearing on a procedural point that had nothing to do with the substantive opinion, and (2) the solicitor instructing the expert is left scrambling to reconstruct, after the fact, what was done and when.
The Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules (Rule 19, candour to the court/tribunal) extend to material filed on behalf of clients, including expert reports the solicitor has commissioned. If AI use is material to how the report was prepared, the solicitor needs to know — and needs a record they can rely on.
What the Expert AI Attestation Agent does
The Expert AI Attestation Agent produces an ART/court-compliant written attestation, signed by the expert, covering their AI use in the preparation of evidence. It takes a structured intake from the expert (which tools, which sections, what purpose, what verification steps) and returns a formatted attestation document suitable for annexing to the expert report or producing on request from the Tribunal or opposing party.
The agent is built to the same local-first, deterministic posture as the rest of the RuleCheck stack: no expert report content is sent to external LLMs, and the attestation logic runs against a structured schema rather than free-form model inference.
How it works
- Solicitor initiates an attestation request and sends the expert a structured intake form referencing the specific report and matter
- Expert completes the intake — listing each AI tool used (if any), the sections of the report where it was used, the purpose (e.g., literature search, language editing, summarisation), and the verification steps they personally performed
- The agent generates a draft attestation in the format expected by ART practice directions, mapping each disclosure to the relevant section of the report
- Expert reviews and signs the attestation; the solicitor receives a signed PDF and a structured record for the matter file
- Attestation is annexed to the expert report or held on file for production if requested by the Tribunal or another party
Why this matters in Brisbane
Brisbane litigation lawyers running matters in the Administrative Review Tribunal — migration, NDIS, veterans’ entitlements, social services, taxation — work with experts whose reports are central to the outcome. The ART’s practice directions for expert evidence set expectations around independence, the basis of opinion, and disclosure. Where an expert has used generative AI in any part of the preparation, having a contemporaneous, structured attestation on file is materially better than reconstructing the chain of tool use under cross-examination.
Queensland practitioners also need to satisfy ASCR Rule 19 obligations to the Tribunal — the same candour standards that apply to court proceedings. A pre-prepared attestation framework means the AI-use question is answered before it becomes a hearing-day surprise.
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
- 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
Exegesis capability references:
Join the waitlist
The Expert AI Attestation Agent is in active build. We’re scoping pricing (per-attestation, per-matter, or firm-licence) based on demand from litigation teams running ART and court matters with expert evidence. Join the waitlist and we’ll let you know when access opens — and what we hear from you will shape the workflow before it ships.