Expert AI Attestation Agent for Perth Litigation Lawyers: Get Tribunal-Ready Attestations from Your Experts Before They File

Your medical expert in a workers’ compensation matter at the Administrative Review Tribunal mentions, in passing, that she used an AI tool to help draft sections of her report. The hearing is in eleven days. You now need to know exactly what the tool did, what it didn’t do, whether the expert’s opinions remain her own, and how to record that in a form the Tribunal will accept. There is no template for this in your matter management system. The Expert AI Attestation Agent produces the attestation document — for the expert to sign — that answers those questions in the format the relevant practice direction expects.

The problem

Expert witnesses increasingly use AI assistance for transcription, literature review, summarisation, or drafting — and most do not document it. When the Administrative Review Tribunal or a court later asks how the report was prepared, the absence of a contemporaneous attestation is itself the problem. The Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules require candour to the court (Rule 19), which extends to expert evidence the solicitor adduces. Federal Court GPN-AI sets expectations for disclosure of generative AI use in proceedings. ART practice directions on expert evidence require experts to set out the basis of their opinions and the materials they relied on. An expert who used a model to summarise medical literature, or to draft a section of a report, has used a material in preparation — and that fact belongs in the record. Most experts do not know how to phrase this. Most instructing solicitors do not have a house template for it. The gap creates attribution risk: opinions that look like the expert’s may, on examination, have been generated or paraphrased by a tool whose reasoning cannot be cross-examined.

What the Expert AI Attestation Agent does

The Expert AI Attestation Agent generates an attestation document — drafted for the expert’s review, edit and signature — that records:

• Which AI tools (if any) the expert used in preparing their report
• The specific tasks each tool performed (e.g., transcription of clinical notes, literature search summarisation, drafting assistance, image enhancement)
• Whether the tool’s output was independently verified by the expert against primary sources
• Confirmation that the opinions expressed are the expert’s own
• The expert’s acknowledgement of their duty to the Tribunal or court

The output is formatted to align with ART expert evidence practice direction expectations and the candour obligations under ASCR Rule 19. It is structured so that, if the report is later challenged, the attestation gives the cross-examiner — and the tribunal — a clean, contemporaneous record rather than a forensic reconstruction.

How it works

1. You provide matter context — jurisdiction (ART, Federal Court, WA Supreme Court), expert discipline, and the report draft or scope
2. The agent generates a tailored attestation questionnaire for the expert, covering AI tools used, tasks performed, verification steps taken, and source materials relied on
3. The expert completes and reviews the attestation — they can edit any clause; the agent does not lock language
4. The agent compiles a final attestation document in a format suitable for filing or annexure to the expert report
5. Optional: the resulting expert report and attestation can be run through RuleCheck (the open-source citation verifier at github.com/andrefabre/rulecheck) to check any cited authorities or sources before lodgement

Why this matters in Perth

Perth litigation lawyers running ART matters from Western Australia — workers’ compensation, NDIS review, veterans’ entitlements, migration — rely heavily on interstate and remote experts. Remote experts are also the most likely to be using AI-assisted dictation, summarisation and drafting tools, often without telling instructing solicitors. The distance makes a documented attestation more important, not less: you cannot walk down the corridor and ask. The Administrative Review Tribunal’s practice directions and guidance for professionals and practitioners set expectations for how expert evidence is to be prepared and presented, and the responsibility for compliance sits with the practitioner instructing the expert. A standing attestation workflow — built into your expert engagement letter — removes the scramble eleven days before hearing.

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
• AustLII (Australasian Legal Information Institute): https://www.austlii.edu.au/
• RuleCheck (open-source citation verifier): https://github.com/andrefabre/rulecheck

Join the waitlist

Join the waitlist — be the first to know when the Expert AI Attestation Agent opens for Perth litigation teams

The Expert AI Attestation Agent is in build. We are scoping the right access model — per-matter, per-expert, or firm licence — based on what Perth litigation teams running ART and Federal Court matters tell us they need. Join the waitlist and we’ll share the draft attestation template for review before launch.