Federal Court embraces GenAI, what does it mean for legal practitioners?

The Federal Court has formally recognised generative AI as part of modern legal practice. The GPN‑AI sets out a principled, workable framework for AI use in proceedings – and for practitioners already working with responsible AI tools, it's an encouraging read.

Relevant documents: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Practice Note (GPN‑AI), Federal Court of Australia (16 April 2026)

Disclaimer: The information provided in the articles in this section are of a general nature and should not be construed as specific advice or relied upon in lieu of appropriate professional advice. Whilst LEAP Legal Software uses commercially reasonably efforts to ensure the information in these articles are up to date at the time of publication, LEAP does not warrant their accuracy, currency or completeness and excludes all loss or damage howsoever arising (including through negligence) in connection with the information contained in these articles.

Quick takeaways

• The Federal Court has formally endorsed GenAI use in proceedings – pleadings, submissions, affidavits – provided it is disclosed and human-verified

• Human verification is non-negotiable: AI assists, practitioners remain accountable for the final product

• Evidence is treated differently. The NSW Supreme Court prohibits GenAI for affidavits and witness statements entirely; the Federal Court permits it with disclosure and verification

• Closed, domain-specific AI tools are implicitly favoured over open public tools

• Disclosure is manageable when AI use is structured and intentional

• This is a formal recognition that GenAI is now part of modern legal practice

Why this update matters

The Federal Court of Australia has now issued its long‑awaited Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Practice Note (GPN‑AI), formally recognising that generative AI can be used in the conduct of proceedings – provided it is used responsibly, transparently and with human oversight.

For legal practitioners, this marks an important moment in the evolution of court‑endorsed AI use. The Federal Court has moved beyond general cautions about AI toward a principled, workable framework that permits GenAI‑assisted work while safeguarding the integrity of evidence and the administration of justice.

For LEAP users in particular, the Practice Note reinforces that secure, closed‑AI tools integrated into legal workflows are not only permissible, but well aligned with what courts are now explicitly expecting.

What the Federal Court’s GPN‑AI actually does

The GPN‑AI adopts a deliberately balanced and enabling approach:

• it accepts that GenAI can improve efficiency, reduce costs and enhance access to justice;

• it squarely acknowledges the risks of hallucinated authorities, factual inaccuracies and over‑reliance – particularly with reference to open GenAI tools; and

• it anchors AI use firmly within existing professional, ethical and procedural obligations.

Importantly, the Practice Note does not prohibit the use of GenAI in preparing pleadings, submissions, chronologies, evidence or other documents filed with the Court. Instead, it makes clear that:

• responsibility for accuracy always remains with the human author;

• users must understand the limitations and risks of the tool they are using;

• disclosure is required where GenAI is used; and

• misuse may attract consequences, including adverse costs orders.

In practical terms, the Federal Court has confirmed that GenAI may be used across Federal Court documents, provided there is human verification and appropriate transparency.

Evidence is treated differently – consistently and deliberately

Where the Federal Court draws a firmer line is in relation to evidence.

Consistent with orthodox evidentiary principles, the GPN‑AI emphasises that:

• affidavits, witness statements and expert reports must reflect the person’s own knowledge, recollection or opinion;

• GenAI must not fabricate, embellish or substitute human evidence; and

• disclosure is required where GenAI is used to analyse or generate material underpinning evidence.

This approach eclipses that taken by the Supreme Court of New South Wales under Practice Note SC Gen 23.

Under SC Gen 23:

• GenAI must not be used to generate, edit or re‑phrase the content of affidavits, witness statements, character references or other evidentiary material;

• practitioners and witnesses are required to affirmatively disclose that GenAI was not used in preparing that evidence;

• any proposed exception (for example, annexures or expert material) requires prior leave and detailed disclosure, including whether the tool is closed‑source; and

• GenAI may be used confidently for chronologies, document review and written submissions, subject to verification.

Closed Legal GenAI is appropriate for analysis, drafting and synthesis – but not as a proxy for human evidence.

The broader evolution: from caution to calibrated use

The Federal Court approach reflects the trajectory identified in the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s 2025 report, Artificial Intelligence in Victoria’s Courts and Tribunals.

The VLRC rejected both uncritical adoption and blanket prohibition. Instead, it recommended a risk‑based, principles‑driven framework centred on:

• human oversight and accountability;

• transparency about AI use;

• protection of evidence integrity;

• differential treatment for high‑risk uses (such as evidence); and

• proportionate consequences for misuse.

The Federal Court’s GPN‑AI embodies that framework in practice. It permits innovation, but only where courts, parties and practitioners can remain confident in the reliability of what is put before the Court.

Why LEAP clients are particularly well‑positioned

The direction of the Court strongly favours the way LEAP clients can already work.

In particular:

• Closed‑AI environments – such as MatterAI and LawY built into LEAP – keep things private and confidential.

• Legal‑domain AI, constrained by authoritative sources, reduces hallucinations compared with open public tools.

• Human‑in‑the‑loop workflows within LEAP make verification and responsibility explicit, aligning squarely with court expectations.

• Transparency about AI assistance is easier where AI is embedded into document workflows rather than bolted on informally.

As both the Federal Court and NSW Supreme Court acknowledge, the real risk is not AI itself, but uncontrolled, opaque and unverified use of public tools.

For practitioners using closed, auditable systems with rigorous checking, GenAI is no longer marginal – it is an accepted part of modern litigation practice.

A genuinely positive signal for modern practice

Read in context, the Federal Court’s GPN‑AI is not a warning shot. It is an institutional acknowledgment that GenAI is now part of contemporary legal work.

Courts are not asking practitioners to retreat from technology. They are asking them to:

• understand its limits,

• use it appropriately for the task at hand, and

• take responsibility for the final product.

For LEAP clients working within secure, legal‑grade AI environments, that message is an encouraging one.

Practical takeaways for LEAP clients

• Yes, GenAI can be used in Federal Court documents, including pleadings, submissions, statements and affidavits.

• Human verification remains non‑negotiable. AI assists; people remain accountable.

• Evidence is different. In matters before the Supreme Court of NSW, GenAI must not be used to draft affidavits or witness statements at all.

• Closed AI matters. Courts are implicitly favouring secure, domain‑specific tools over public chatbots.

• Disclosure is manageable when AI use is structured and intentional.

Used properly, GenAI is no longer experimental. Courts are showing how it can be integrated safely into everyday practice.

Related resources

• Case note: When AI shortcuts cost more than they save: Hoverd v M & J D Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 1013 FWC

• Blog: FWC flags new expectations on GenAI use – with costs consequences to match

• Webinar: Federal Court embraces GenAI – and what it means for legal practitioners