10. Promoting awareness and education to support safe use of AI

Overview

•​Many of our recommendations can only be effective if supported by education and training. This will involve various kinds of training programs for different court users.

•​Education and training are needed to:

–​inform people about court and tribunal guidelines on the use of AI and how this intersects with professional obligations

–​build digital skills and capabilities among court users to support the safe use of AI.

•​Courts and legal professional bodies should provide education and training to ensure a comprehensive approach across the sector.

AI education underway

10.1​AI education and training activities have been occurring across Victoria’s courts and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) since 2023.

10.2​In 2023, the Judicial College of Victoria ran a program called ‘ChatGPT: Being alert but not alarmed’ which provided an overview of how AI operates and its uses.^[1] In 2024, it ran a seminar with the County Court on deepfakes.^[2] In 2025, the Judicial College of Victoria provided seminars on AI and evidence,^[3] and on AI in the future of the judicial role.^[4]

10.3​Court Services Victoria (CSV) is implementing an education and support program.^[5] This includes an awareness campaign focused on digital competence and workshops about the safe use of AI. CSV is also developing training for its digital technical support staff to support court staff more generally.

10.4​The Law Library of Victoria has provided:

•​a digital literacy webinar for lawyers and the judiciary

•​training on the transformative impact of AI on lawyers

•​research guides on AI use in courts

•​a roadshow providing live demonstrations highlighting the latest AI products from legal publishers.^[6]

10.5​The Law Institute of Victoria has created an ‘Artificial Intelligence Hub’ and guidelines on the use of AI in relation to professional ethical obligations.^[7] It is planning to incorporate AI components across its professional development programs.^[8]

10.6​Training programs to support Continuous Professional Development (CPD) are periodically offered by education providers such as the Leo Cussen Centre for Law and the College of Law. This includes topics such as AI prompting for lawyers, AI technology in legal practice and AI in contract drafting and interpretation.^[9] The College of Law sponsors the Centre for Legal Innovation, which provides resources and delivers a range of events to lawyers about digital and new technologies.^[10] The Victorian Bar has held several CPD sessions on AI-related topics in 2025.

10.7​The Supreme Court delivers training to judicial officers and associates.^[11] We also heard that the County Court has embedded AI into its education agenda and has held training sessions for judges on the risks and safe use of AI.^[12] AI was also featured at the County Court Judge’s Conference in 2024. Training in other courts is at various stages of development and delivery.

Education and skills for the safe use of AI

10.8​As use of AI in Victoria’s courts and VCAT increases, education and training for court users will need to be expanded and adapted. The safe use of AI requires education and knowledge of:

•​digital competence and AI skills

•​courts guidelines and policies

•​legal and professional obligations

•​AI use in evidence.

10.9​While not everyone requires detailed knowledge of AI tools and systems, ‘Education at all levels in the justice system is crucial for mitigating risk and improving effective and safe AI use.’^[13]

Digital competence and AI skills

10.10​Education and training are needed to assist people within courts and court users to understand AI in practice, ranging from:

•​basic digital competence (literacy) such as how AI works, its capabilities and limitations

•​knowledge about the types of AI used in court contexts and how it can be used safely

•​specialised skills necessary to obtain the full benefits of AI and to support the introduction of AI technology by courts.^[14]

10.11​The need for staff expertise and training has been identified as a barrier to the take up of legal technology.^[15] Findings from the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner (VLSB+C) census found that a large proportion of lawyers would like further training on:

•​how AI can enhance workflow and efficiency (73.8 per cent)

•​safe and ethical use of AI (70.4 per cent)

•​writing effective prompts (65.7 per cent)

•​how AI works (60.4 per cent)

•​selecting or assessing AI products (44.6 per cent).

10.12​Training should raise general awareness about the risks and limitations that lead to improper uses of AI in courts and tribunals.^[16] The Supreme Court noted users are not aware of the limitations of AI tools and so do not take steps to address those limitations. Education can help to mitigate this risk.^[17] We heard training about privacy and confidentiality considerations was particularly important for people using public AI tools.^[18]

10.13​Specific training is also needed within courts and tribunals as new AI tools are adopted.^[19] As the Canadian Judicial Council advised, ‘AI should not be employed without users undergoing a comprehensive educational process and understanding best practices for interacting with the technology’.^[20]

10.14​Private companies, professional bodies and public sector organisations told us that education and training was an internal priority and important in helping organisations to benefit from new AI technologies.^[21] Representatives of Microsoft said a key finding from the 2024 whole-of-government trial of Microsoft 365 Copilot was that training helped build understanding and confidence amongst staff, which increased how effectively an AI tool was being used.^[22]

Understanding and using guidelines

10.15​Principles and guidelines will not be useful unless they are supported by education and training.^[23] The VLSB+C census estimated that fewer than one-third of lawyers in Victoria responding to the survey (29.1 per cent) had read the Supreme or County Court AI guidelines by April 2025. The survey indicated that fewer than one-third (29.2 per cent) were familiar with the Joint Statement on the Use of AI in Australian Legal Practice.^[24]

10.16​Education and training should highlight guidelines and how they are relevant to court users. It should also highlight where specific courts have tailored AI policies.^[25] Representatives of the UTS Human Technology Institute stated that the risk of non-compliance with guidance is so significant that monitoring of the legal profession may be required.^[26]

10.17​Education and training should draw attention to human rights. The Human Rights Law Centre recommended training programs for judicial officers and court staff so they can critically evaluate AI outputs and address potential human rights concerns.^[27] This includes how human rights are prioritised through court guidelines and policies, such as the proposed AI assurance framework discussed in Chapter 9.

Compliance with legal professional obligations

10.18​Education and training are required to demonstrate how the use of AI aligns with legal professional obligations.^[28] This was a common view across courts and professional bodies. There is a clear gap in lawyers’ understanding about how AI use may lead to breaches of professional obligations. While we heard that existing obligations were broad enough to cover any misuse of AI, the increasing numbers of court cases where lawyers have incorrectly relied on AI highlights this gap.^[29]

10.19​Legal professional bodies are responsible for overseeing compliance with legal professional obligations. In Chapter 7 we proposed court-issued guidelines for court users. However, issuing practical guidance remains an important role for legal professional bodies. It is appropriate for legal professional bodies to provide guidance about lawyers’ obligations to clients and to courts. Legal professional bodies will need to review and regularly update guidance to the profession as AI technology risks and uses evolve.

10.20​In Chapter 5 we stated that existing legal professional conduct rules may not need to be amended. But their intersection with safe and appropriate AI use needs to be supported by comprehensive and ongoing training. The Centre for the Future of the Legal Profession and UNSW Law and Justice said:

Existing professional obligations are adequate to address risks relating to AI, but the intersection between the obligations and AI risks needs to be better communicated and understood.^[30]

10.21​Education should also raise awareness of the legal obligations of court staff that require sensitive or personal information not to be published.

AI and evidence

10.22​The use of AI in evidence will require increased capabilities by judicial officers and lawyers to:

•​understand how AI tools might be used in evidence (for example by experts)^[31]

•​recognise and evaluate AI-generated or informed evidence^[32]

•​question limitations of AI evidence relating to bias, inaccuracy and provenance.^[33]

10.23​We heard that there is a lack of AI literacy in relation to evidence.^[34] In Chapter 5 we discussed how the use of AI may interact with the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) and what supporting materials may be necessary to assist judicial officers and lawyers to consider AI-generated evidence.

10.24​Education and training are needed to support expert witnesses. Training programs for experts could focus on compliance with the relevant practice notes, such as the Practice Note Expert Evidence in Criminal Trials.^[35]

Training should be formalised and ongoing

10.25​Education and training should be ongoing to respond to changes in AI technology,^[36] as well as new uses of AI tools.^[37] The Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner highlighted that information security training requires ‘upkeep’ over time.^[38] This view is endorsed by the Canadian Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs, which said there should be ‘initial and ongoing training on AI and its implications on court activities’.^[39]

10.26​It is important that ongoing AI education is provided to court staff and judicial officers,^[40] and during induction processes.^[41] The Coroners Court supported internal training at the induction stage.^[42] Ongoing education and training is also important when AI tools are introduced or updated.

10.27​Training should be tailored and coordinated across the legal profession. Those providing formalised education and training should not be conflicted by a commercial interest in the sale of AI tools.^[43] Some commercial providers may downplay risks or overstate the reliability of their product.

10.28​Education and training should focus on specific skills and competencies required for different users of AI.^[44] This will require a coordinated approach across the legal sector. Courts, education providers, professional bodies and employers all have responsibility for education and training for use of AI in Victoria’s courts and VCAT.

Training for judicial officers and court staff

10.29​The Supreme Court told us training should be provided to judges and judges’ associates.^[45]

10.30​We heard that training could focus on:

•​general digital literacy, digital competence and safe and proper use^[46]

•​awareness of judicial guidelines (proposed in Chapter 8), and advice for judicial officers on the risks and safe use of AI^[47]

•​understanding how AI tools might be used in evidence,^[48] and issues relating to bias, accuracy and reliability.^[49]

10.31​The Judicial College of Victoria has a critical role to play in judicial training.^[50] To support judicial education, changes to the national Guide to Judicial Conduct^[51] could provide further guidance on the appropriate use of AI by judicial officers, as discussed in Chapter 8.^[52]

10.32​Court staff require training for general digital competence and dedicated training if new AI tools are introduced.^[53] As the Canadian Judicial Council suggested, court administration has a critical role in the provision of technical support for AI integration.^[54]

10.33​We heard CSV has an important responsibility to ensure appropriate training and resources on digital literacy.^[55]

Training for lawyers

10.34​Only half of lawyers surveyed by the VLSB+C in Victoria had participated in AI-focused education and training in the previous year. More than two-thirds (69.1 per cent) indicated a need for additional learning and support.^[56] Training is particularly needed to help lawyers understand how the risks of AI intersect with existing professional obligations.^[57] The Ethics Guidelines developed by the Law Institute of Victoria encourage lawyers to exercise caution in using AI until they have received appropriate training.^[58]

10.35​While law practices and employers have a role in providing training and education,^[59] 45 per cent of lawyers responding to the VLSB+C census are in workplaces that have not developed internal AI guidelines.^[60] Some larger organisations provide comprehensive and sometimes mandatory training for employees. However, access to training varies widely across organisations. A coordinated approach by the regulator and professional bodies is needed to address gaps in education and training.^[61]

10.36​As outlined in Chapter 5, the Legal Profession Uniform Law scheme outlines the ethical and professional standards required of lawyers in Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australia. The Law Council of Australia periodically prepares and updates a Commentary on the Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules to provide guidance to lawyers on the application of the rules in specific situations.^[62]

10.37​Representatives from Law Firms Australia suggested commentary provided by the Law Council of Australia could be expanded to explain how the conduct rules for solicitors and barristers may apply when using AI.^[63] Additions to the commentary could provide consistent and practical advice applicable to both solicitors and barristers about how to comply with their existing professional duties. As part of its periodic review of the Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules, the Commission recommends the Law Council update its commentary in relation to AI.

10.38​Legal professional bodies have an important role to play in raising awareness about AI risks and professional obligations. For example, considerations about communication between lawyers and clients do not form part of the guidelines proposed in Chapter 7, as it is not directly relevant to use of AI in courts and tribunals. The joint guidance by VLSB+C, Law Society of NSW and the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia notes that lawyers should be transparent about the use of AI by:

properly recording and disclosing to their clients (and where necessary or appropriate, the court and fellow practitioners) when and how they have used AI in a matter and how the use of AI is reflected in costs, if requested by the client.^[64]

Disclosure to clients is also recommended in the Law Institute of Victoria’s Ethics Guidelines.^[65] Education and training should raise awareness of these guidelines and provide in-depth advice about AI and professional obligations.

10.39​Although the education of students is outside our Terms of Reference, law schools have a central role in educating future lawyers about AI.^[66] It is worth noting that the UNSW Centre for the Future of the Legal Profession and UNSW Law and Justice told us that law schools have less flexibility than other professions in setting the curriculum, and suggested AI should not be a standalone subject.^[67]

10.40​In reflecting on emerging risks from the use of GenAI in Australian courts, barrister Claire Roberts suggests that lawyers also have a role in educating their clients and other witnesses about the risks of AI. She notes lawyers should ‘be alert to the possibility that their clients and other witnesses may be tempted to use generative AI and [to] caution against its use’.^[68] She adds the ‘possible use of AI by an opponent witness may also be a topic to consider exploring in correspondence to their solicitors, or during cross-examination’.^[69]

Professional development programs

10.41​Lawyers need to participate in education and training about AI to understand their ethical and legal obligations. The role of CPD and proposals for a mandatory technology requirement, as covered in Chapter 5, were raised in some submissions and consultations. It is increasingly common for US lawyers who have been found to cite fake cases to be directed to attend accredited professional development programs as part of the penalty against them.^[70]

10.42​Representatives of the Law Institute of Victoria, the UNSW Centre for the Future of the Legal Profession and UNSW Law and Justice stated training should be compulsory.^[71] This could provide a universal approach to emerging risks and potential misuses of AI.^[72]

10.43​The UNSW Centre for the Future of the Legal Profession and UNSW Law and Justice provided two alternatives to raise AI awareness amongst lawyers—a mandatory technology competence for CPD or a technology certification for lawyers.^[73]

10.44​The Uniform Rules require lawyers to complete CPD training across each of the following categories:

•​ethics and professional responsibility

•​practice management and business skills

•​professional skills (or barristers’ skills)

•​substantive law.

10.45​The VLSB+C stated that these categories are broad enough to support lawyers undertaking education about AI.^[74] For example, training on AI could fall under ethics and professional responsibility or business skills.

10.46​The VLSB+C suggested the profession would be largely motivated to undertake AI training to practice effectively in their areas of legal expertise, and they would do this before using CPD to learn about AI.^[75] Representatives of Law Firms Australia said that the focus should be on the availability of AI-related training, and that a mandatory module would lower engagement from the profession.^[76]

10.47​The Law Institute of Victoria advised that it had already incorporated AI education throughout its professional development program.^[77] It will continue to inform the profession on the key risks and opportunities associated with new ways of working through the adoption of AI tools.^[78]

10.48​Given the views of the regulator and the flexibility of the current CPD rules, the Commission does not recommend mandatory dedicated AI training at this stage. Self-directed training on AI is important for the safe use of AI in Victoria’s courts and VCAT, but this can be accommodated within the existing CPD obligations.

Raising public awareness

10.49​Given the risks associated with unsafe and improper uses of AI tools, public-facing education and training in Victoria’s courts and VCAT is necessary to:

•​encourage the safe and proper use of AI by court users

•​promote understanding about AI guidelines for self-represented litigants and witnesses

•​preserve transparency and public trust in the justice system.

10.50​We heard that information about guidelines should be accessible to all court users^[79] and information may need to be provided in different formats. A representative of the Eastern Community Legal Centre suggested online videos could outline the risks of using AI for drafting court documents.^[80] Courts should also consider how guidelines are communicated to culturally and linguistically diverse communities, self-represented litigants and other groups experiencing barriers to justice.

10.51​While professional bodies will provide education and training for lawyers, there is a gap in information provided to self-represented litigants. Court registries provide some assistance to self-represented litigants and may have a dedicated self-represented litigant coordinator.^[81] These functions could be expanded to provide education and guidance about the use of AI in Victoria’s courts and VCAT. Other bodies with legal education functions could be funded to provide an educative function to self-represented litigants.

1. ​‘ChatGPT: Being Alert but Not Alarmed’, Judicial College of Victoria (Web Page, 24 October 2024) <https://judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/events/chatgpt-being-alert-not-alarmed>.

   ↑

2. ​Consultation 7 (Judicial College of Victoria).

   ↑

3. ​‘AI and the Future of Evidence’, Judicial College of Victoria (Web Page, 2 September 2025) <https://judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/events/ai-and-future-evidence>.

   ↑

4. ​‘AI and the Future of Judging’, Judicial College of Victoria (Web Page, 24 September 2025) <https://judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/events/ai-and-future-judging>.

   ↑

5. ​Submission 25 (Court Services Victoria).

   ↑

6. ​Submissions 9 (Law Library Victoria), 26 (Supreme Court of Victoria).

   ↑

7. ​‘Artificial Intelligence Hub’, Law Institute of Victoria (Web Page) <https://www.liv.asn.au/aihub>; Law Institute Victoria, Ethical and Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence Guideline (Ethical Guideline, 13 August 2025) <https://www.liv.asn.au/download.aspx?DocumentVersionKey=69158983-87f3-4c1d-be99-8c300b5c7afd>.

   ↑

8. ​Consultation 11 (Law Institute of Victoria).

   ↑

9. ​‘Mastering Contract Interpretation and AI Drafting with Confidence’, College of Law (Web Page) <https://www.collaw.edu.au/course-catalogue/live-courses/webinars/Mastering-contract-interpretation-and-AI-drafting-with-confidence/>; ‘College of Law Introduces Legaltech Training to Their Future Lawyers’, Josef (Web Page, 7 March 2023) <https://joseflegal.com/blog/college-of-law-puts-hundreds-of-future-lawyers-through-legaltech-training/>; ‘AI Prompting for Lawyers – Effective Skills for Legal Practice’, Leo Cussen Centre for Law (Web Page) <https://store.leocussen.edu.au/product/ai-prompting-for-lawyers-effective-skills-for-legal-practice-o25072>; ‘AI Technology in Legal Practice’, Leo Cussen Centre for Law (Web Page) <https://store.leocussen.edu.au/product/ai-technology-in-legal-practice-o25029>.

   ↑

10. ​‘Centre for Legal Innovation’, Centre for Legal Innovation, College of Law (Web Page) <https://www.cli.collaw.com/>.

    ↑

11. ​Consultation 32 (Supreme Court of Victoria).

    ↑

12. ​Submission 24 (County Court of Victoria).

    ↑

13. ​Ibid.

    ↑

14. ​Submissions 5 (Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner), 22 (Centre for the Future of the Legal Profession and UNSW Law and Justice). Consultation 7 (Judicial College of Victoria).

    ↑

15. ​Julian Webb and Jeannie Paterson, ‘The Evolution of Legal Knowledge Work in An Age of Brilliant(?) Technologies: From Robo-Lawyer to Digital Law Clerk’ [2025] ANU Journal of Law & Technology (forthcoming), 11 <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5371536>.

    ↑

16. ​Consultation 35 (Victoria Legal Aid). Victoria Legal Aid highlighted that their approach changed based on type of AI, so that their awareness raising was focused on the use of public General Purpose AI systems.

    ↑

17. ​Submission 26 (Supreme Court of Victoria).

    ↑

18. ​Submission 5 (Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner). Consultation 35 (Victoria Legal Aid).

    ↑

19. ​Submissions 22 (Centre for the Future of the Legal Profession and UNSW Law and Justice), 26 (Supreme Court of Victoria). Consultation 14 (Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner).

    ↑

20. ​Canadian Judicial Council, Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Canadian Courts (Guidelines, September 2024) 9 <https://cjc-ccm.ca/sites/default/files/documents/2024/AI%20Guidelines%20-%20FINAL%20-%202024-09%20-%20EN.pdf>.

    ↑

21. ​Consultations 6 (Office of Public Prosecutions), 7 (Judicial College of Victoria), 11 (Law Institute of Victoria), 25 (Microsoft), 29 (Cenitex), 35 (Victoria Legal Aid).

    ↑

22. ​Consultation 25 (Microsoft); Digital Transformation Agency (Cth), Evaluation of the Whole-of-Government Trial of Copilot for Microsoft 365: Summary of Evaluation Findings (Report, 2024).

    ↑

23. ​Consultation 23 (Dr Fabian Horton). Submission 11 (Dr Armin Alimardani).

    ↑

24. ​F Abedi and NJ Balmer, AI Use in the Legal Profession: Findings from the 2025 Victorian Lawyer Census (Report, Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner, forthcoming 2025) 10.

    ↑

25. ​Submission 26 (Supreme Court of Victoria). Consultation 2 (Coroners Court of Victoria). For instance, the Magistrates Court were considering tailoring Supreme and County Court guidelines due to their jurisdiction’s volume intense focus: Consultation 15 (Magistrates’ Court of Victoria).

    ↑

26. ​Consultation 34 (Human Technology Institute).

    ↑

27. ​Submission 15 (Human Rights Law Centre).

    ↑

28. ​Submissions 22 (Centre for the Future of the Legal Profession and UNSW Law and Justice), 26 (Supreme Court of Victoria).

    ↑

29. ​For example, Valu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 95; Director of Public Prosecutions v GR [2025] VSC 490; Murray on behalf of the Wamba Wemba Native Title Claim Group v State of Victoria [2025] FCA 731; Handa & Mallick [2024] FedCFamC2F 957; Dayal [2024] FedCFamC2F 1166.

    ↑

30. ​Submission 22 (Centre for the Future of the Legal Profession and UNSW Law and Justice).

    ↑

31. ​The AiLECS lab discussed this in terms of their EXPLAIN project, which is looking at how to provide everyday explanations about the use of AI tools in cross-examination: Consultation 20 (AI for Law Enforcement and Community Safety Lab). For a US perspective, see also Kevin Frazier, ‘An “F” in Judicial Education: Why Emerging Technologies and New Risks Demand Judicial Education Reform’ (2024) 50(1) Ohio Northern University Law Review Article 2, 33–35.

    ↑

32. ​Submission 5 (Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner). Consultation 12 (County Court of Victoria).

    ↑

33. ​Submission 22 (Centre for the Future of the Legal Profession and UNSW Law and Justice).

    ↑

34. ​Consultation 20 (AI for Law Enforcement and Community Safety Lab).

    ↑

35. ​County Court of Victoria, Practice Note: Expert Evidence in Criminal Trials (Practice Note No PNCR 1-2025, June 2025); Supreme Court of Victoria, SC CR 3 – Expert Evidence in Criminal Trials (Practice Note, 1 June 2025) <https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/areas/legal-resources/practice-notes/sc-cr-3-expert-evidence-in-criminal-trials>.

    ↑

36. ​Consultations 11 (Law Institute of Victoria), 33 (Law Firms Australia).

    ↑

37. ​Consultation 23 (Dr Fabian Horton).

    ↑

38. ​Consultation 14 (Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner).

    ↑

39. ​Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada, Action Committee on Modernizing Court Operations, Use of Artificial Intelligence by Courts to Enhance Court Operations (Statement, 20 November 2024) 5 <https://fja-cmf.gc.ca/COVID-19/pdf/Use-of-AI-by-Courts-Utilisation-de-lIA-par-les-tribunaux-eng.pdf>.

    ↑

40. ​Submission 5 (Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner).

    ↑

41. ​Consultation 32 (Supreme Court of Victoria). Court Services Victoria stated that short reminders were already being provided to new starters as part of Courts Group wide induction: Submission 25 (Court Services Victoria).

    ↑

42. ​Consultation 2 (Coroners Court of Victoria).

    ↑

43. ​Submission 6 (Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner).

    ↑

44. ​Submissions 5 (Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner), 8 (Damian Curran), 11 (Dr Armin Alimardani).

    ↑

45. ​Consultation 32 (Supreme Court of Victoria). Also, representatives of the Coronial Council stated, ‘Judicial officers are members of the legal community and it is key to educate them’: Consultation 10 (Coronial Council of Victoria).

    ↑

46. ​Consultations 7 (Judicial College of Victoria), 12 (County Court of Victoria). Submissions 5 (Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner), 15 (Human Rights Law Centre).

    ↑

47. ​Consultations 2 (Coroners Court of Victoria), 7 (Judicial College of Victoria), 15 (Magistrates’ Court of Victoria).

    ↑

48. ​Consultation 7 (Judicial College of Victoria).

    ↑

49. ​Submission 15 (Human Rights Law Centre). For a US perspective, see also Kevin Frazier, ‘An “F” in Judicial Education: Why Emerging Technologies and New Risks Demand Judicial Education Reform’ (2024) 50(1) Ohio Northern University Law Review Article 2, 33–35.

    ↑

50. ​Submissions 22 (Centre for the Future of the Legal Profession and UNSW Law and Justice), 24 (County Court of Victoria), 26 (Supreme Court of Victoria). Consultation 15 (Magistrates’ Court of Victoria).

    ↑

51. ​Australian Institute of Judicial Administration (AIJA), Guide to Judicial Conduct, Third Edition (Revised) (Guide, December 2023) <https://aija.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Judicial-Conduct-guide_revised-Dec-2023-formatting-edits-applied.pdf>.

    ↑

52. ​Consultation 2 (Coroners Court of Victoria).

    ↑

53. ​Submission 22 (Centre for the Future of the Legal Profession and UNSW Law and Justice).

    ↑

54. ​Canadian Judicial Council, Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Canadian Courts (Guidelines, September 2024) 9 <https://cjc-ccm.ca/sites/default/files/documents/2024/AI%20Guidelines%20-%20FINAL%20-%202024-09%20-%20EN.pdf>.

    ↑

55. ​Submission 27 (Federation of Community Legal Centres and Justice Connect).

    ↑

56. ​F Abedi and NJ Balmer, AI Use in the Legal Profession: Findings from the 2025 Victorian Lawyer Census (Report, Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner, forthcoming 2025).

    ↑

57. ​Submissions 22 (Centre for the Future of the Legal Profession and UNSW Law and Justice), 24 (County Court of Victoria), 26 (Supreme Court of Victoria).

    ↑

58. ​Law Institute Victoria, Ethical and Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence Guideline (Ethical Guideline, 13 August 2025) 2 <https://www.liv.asn.au/download.aspx?DocumentVersionKey=69158983-87f3-4c1d-be99-8c300b5c7afd>.

    ↑

59. ​Submission 27 (Federation of Community Legal Centres and Justice Connect).

    ↑

60. ​F Abedi and NJ Balmer, AI Use in the Legal Profession: Findings from the 2025 Victorian Lawyer Census (Report, Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner, forthcoming 2025) 7.

    ↑

61. ​Submission 27 (Federation of Community Legal Centres and Justice Connect). Consultation 27 (UNSW’s Centre for the Future of the Legal Profession and Professor Lyria Bennett Moses).

    ↑

62. ​Law Council of Australia, Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules: Commentary (Report, March 2024) <https://lawcouncil.au/files/pdf/policy-guideline/ASCR%20Commentary.pdf>.

    ↑

63. ​Consultation 33 (Law Firms Australia).

    ↑

64. ​The Law Society of NSW, Legal Practice Board of Western Australia, and Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner, Statement on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Australian Legal Practice (Statement, 26 March 2025) 2 <https://lsbc.vic.gov.au/news-updates/news/statement-use-artificial-intelligence-australian-legal-practice>.

    ↑

65. ​Law Institute Victoria, Ethical and Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence Guideline (Ethical Guideline, 13 August 2025) 2 <https://www.liv.asn.au/download.aspx?DocumentVersionKey=69158983-87f3-4c1d-be99-8c300b5c7afd>.

    ↑

66. ​Consultations 4 (Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner), 11 (Law Institute of Victoria).

    ↑

67. ​Submission 22 (Centre for the Future of the Legal Profession and UNSW Law and Justice).

    ↑

68. ​Claire Roberts, ‘Generative AI in Australian Courts: Early Cases, Emerging Risks’ (2025) 27(5–6) Internet Law Bulletin 79, 81.

    ↑

69. ​Ibid.

    ↑

70. ​Bunce v Visual Technology Innovations, Inc, (ED Pa, Civ No 23-1740, Feb 27, 2025) slip op 7; Dehghani v Castro, (D NM, cv00052, Apr 02, 2025) slip op 11; In re Marla C Martin, (Bankr ND Ill, 24 B 13368, Jul 18, 2025) slip op 17.

    ↑

71. ​Submission 22 (Centre for the Future of the Legal Profession and UNSW Law and Justice). Consultations 11 (Law Institute of Victoria), 27 (UNSW’s Centre for the Future of the Legal Profession and Professor Lyria Bennett Moses).

    ↑

72. ​Consultation 11 (Law Institute of Victoria).

    ↑

73. ​Submission 22 (Centre for the Future of the Legal Profession and UNSW Law and Justice). Consultation 27 (UNSW’s Centre for the Future of the Legal Profession and Professor Lyria Bennett Moses). A representative at the Community Legal Centres workshop suggested AI should only be used by those who have undergone proper training: Consultation 8 (Federation of Community Legal Centres Workshop).

    ↑

74. ​Submission 6 (Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner).

    ↑

75. ​Consultation 4 (Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner).

    ↑

76. ​Consultation 33 (Law Firms Australia).

    ↑

77. ​Submission 16 (Law Institute Victoria). Consultation 11 (Law Institute of Victoria).

    ↑

78. ​Submission 16 (Law Institute Victoria).

    ↑

79. ​Submission 27 (Federation of Community Legal Centres and Justice Connect).

    ↑

80. ​Consultation 30 (Eastern Community Legal Centre) 6.

    ↑

81. ​‘Self Represented Litigants – I Need Help’, County Court of Victoria (Web Page, 5 July 2022) <https://www.countycourt.vic.gov.au/going-court/self-represented-litigants/i-need-help>; ‘Representing Yourself’, Supreme Court of Victoria (Web Page, 2025) <http://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/going-to-court/help-with-court-processes/representing-yourself>.

    ↑