In-Draft Compliance Nudge Agent for Perth Litigation Lawyers: Catch AI Disclosure Gaps and Hallucinated Citations Before Lodgement

You’re drafting a witness outline for an Administrative Review Tribunal matter on a Friday afternoon. The expert report leans on three authorities you asked an LLM to summarise, the witness statement contains a paragraph the junior rewrote with AI assistance, and the AI disclosure section is — at this point — a placeholder labelled “TODO before filing”. By Monday morning the bundle is on its way to the Tribunal. The In-Draft Compliance Nudge Agent is built to catch missing disclosures, dubious citations, and privilege exposure while you’re still in the draft — not after lodgement.

The problem

The Administrative Review Tribunal’s expert evidence guidance and the broader Federal Court GPN-AI regime have changed what a “clean” draft looks like. AI-assisted drafting is permitted in most jurisdictions, but it carries disclosure obligations, citation-accuracy obligations, and — where client material has been pasted into a third-party model — potential privilege and confidentiality questions under the Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules. The compliance check is no longer something that happens at lodgement; by then, the risky text is already in the document, surrounded by a thousand edits, and no one remembers which paragraph came from where.

The failure mode in Perth litigation teams isn’t malice. It’s volume, time pressure, and the fact that AI-generated content looks indistinguishable from carefully drafted human content — until a citation doesn’t exist, a disclosure is missing, or a privileged passage turns out to have been processed through a consumer LLM.

What the In-Draft Compliance Nudge Agent does

The agent runs alongside your drafting workflow and produces live nudges as the document develops. Specifically, it flags:

• Missing or incomplete AI disclosure — where AI-assisted passages appear without a corresponding disclosure statement in the form expected by the relevant court or tribunal
• Dubious citations — case references whose name, court, year, or paragraph cannot be verified against the Australian authority registry (Federal Court, Federal Circuit and Family Court, High Court, State Supreme Courts including WA, AustLII)
• Privilege and confidentiality risks — passages flagged as potentially containing client-identifying material that should not have been processed by external models

It is a deliverable in the RuleCheck family — local-first, deterministic where possible, and designed not to transmit draft content to external LLMs.

How it works

1. Connect to the draft. The agent reads a working draft (.md, .txt, or pasted content) in the RuleCheck interface. No content leaves your machine for external model inference.
2. Extract structure. Citations, headings, witness-statement blocks, and any pre-existing AI disclosure section are identified and tagged.
3. Run the three checks. Each citation is verified against the authority registry; the disclosure section is checked for completeness against the framework you’ve selected (ART expert evidence, GPN-AI, or state-court equivalent); flagged passages are scanned for privilege markers.
4. Surface nudges in-line. Findings are returned as a structured list — per-paragraph, per-citation — with a recommended action: re-verify, replace, add disclosure, or escalate for privilege review.
5. Archive the run. A Markdown report is produced for the matter file, suitable for audit and for demonstrating reasonable verification steps were taken before lodgement.

Why this matters in Perth

Perth litigation teams handle a steady volume of Administrative Review Tribunal work — migration, NDIS, veterans’ entitlements, social security — alongside Federal Court and Supreme Court of Western Australia matters. The ART’s published practice directions and guidance for professionals set the framework for expert evidence and party conduct, and the Tribunal expects practitioners to comply with the directions applicable to their stream. The Federal Court’s GPN-AI applies to any Federal Court filing regardless of which registry it’s lodged through, and Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rule 19 (candour to the court) applies uniformly to WA practitioners.

The practical consequence: a Perth litigator’s draft might need to satisfy ART expert-evidence requirements, GPN-AI disclosure expectations, and ASCR candour obligations within the same week. Catching gaps while the draft is live — rather than at the lodgement checklist stage — is the only workflow that scales.

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/

Join the waitlist

Join the waitlist — be the first to know when the In-Draft Compliance Nudge Agent opens for Perth litigation teams

The In-Draft Compliance Nudge Agent is being scoped alongside RuleCheck’s live citation verification beta. Pricing structure — per-filing, per-user monthly, or firm licence — is still being shaped by what we hear from waitlist members. Join the list and tell us how your team drafts; that’s what determines how the tier you sit in actually works.