AI-Use Disclosure Clause Assembler for Melbourne Litigation Lawyers: Draft Compliant Disclosure Clauses for Every Filing

The associate used a model to summarise the transcript. The expert ran their draft report through a tool to tighten the methodology section. You used generative AI to test counter-arguments at 11pm. None of that is prohibited — but the Federal Court GPN-AI and the Administrative Review Tribunal’s expert evidence guidance now expect disclosure, and the wording you put in front of a judge or member needs to be specific about what was used, where, and by whom. Getting that paragraph wrong is its own compliance event. The AI-Use Disclosure Clause Assembler builds it for you.

The problem

The Federal Court of Australia’s General Practice Note on the use of generative AI (GPN-AI) sets expectations for the disclosure of AI use in proceedings. The Administrative Review Tribunal publishes practice directions and guidance for professionals and practitioners, including expectations for expert evidence and the integrity of materials placed before the Tribunal. Together they shift the practitioner’s task from “decide whether to disclose” to “draft a disclosure clause that is accurate, specific, and matches the forum’s expectations”.

In practice, three things go wrong:

• The disclosure is too generic to be useful (“AI was used in preparing this document”) and invites follow-up directions from the bench.
• The disclosure omits a category of use the practitioner didn’t realise counted — for example, an expert’s use of a translation or transcription model on source material.
• The disclosure is drafted from scratch each time, with no firm-level consistency, no audit trail, and no link to the underlying matter file.

The Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules require candour to the court (Rule 19). A disclosure clause that materially understates AI involvement is a candour problem, not a stylistic one.

What the AI-Use Disclosure Clause Assembler does

The Disclosure Clause Assembler is a narrow agent that takes a structured intake — what tools were used, at what stage of the document, by which person, on what inputs — and assembles a disclosure clause that maps to the forum’s stated expectations (Federal Court GPN-AI for federal proceedings; ART practice direction guidance for Tribunal matters). It produces a clause you can paste into the filing, plus a matching internal record for the matter file.

The deliverable is a compliant AI-use disclosure clause for filings per GPN-AI and the ART Expert Evidence Practice Direction — not legal advice, and not a substitute for the practitioner’s own judgement about what to disclose.

How it works

1. Intake. You answer a short structured questionnaire: forum (Federal Court / ART / other), document type (submission, affidavit, expert report, written outline), AI tools used, stage of use (research, drafting, summarisation, translation, citation suggestion, review), and the human reviewer’s name.
2. Forum mapping. The agent maps your inputs to the relevant disclosure expectations — GPN-AI for Federal Court filings, the ART’s practice direction guidance for Tribunal matters.
3. Clause assembly. A disclosure clause is generated using deterministic templates, with the specific tool names, stages, and reviewer identifiers inserted. No free-form model generation of the clause text itself.
4. Internal record. A matching internal log entry is produced for the matter file — same facts, longer form, suitable for firm governance or a later inquiry.
5. Practitioner review. You review and edit the clause before it goes into the filing. The agent does not file anything and does not make the disclosure decision for you.

Why this matters in Melbourne

Melbourne litigation teams run a mixed practice across the Federal Court (Victoria registry), the Federal Circuit and Family Court, the Supreme Court of Victoria, and the Administrative Review Tribunal. Each forum’s expectations on AI use are converging but not identical, and a Melbourne practice handling a federal commercial matter on Monday and an ART review on Wednesday needs disclosure language that fits each forum without being recycled blindly between them. A consistent, forum-mapped clause assembler — sitting alongside the rest of the pre-lodgement workflow — reduces the chance that a clause drafted for one forum ends up in a filing for another, and gives the firm a defensible record of how the disclosure was constructed.

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

Join the waitlist

Join the waitlist — be the first to access the AI-Use Disclosure Clause Assembler for Melbourne litigation teams

The Disclosure Clause Assembler is in build. We’re scoping pricing (per-filing, per-user monthly, or firm-licence) based on demand from Melbourne litigation practices working across the Federal Court and ART. Join the waitlist and we’ll let you know when access opens — what we hear from you will shape the intake schema and the templates we ship with.