Tasmania Supreme Court: Publishes Generative AI Guidelines

• The Supreme Court of Tasmania has published new guidelines for generative AI use, effective October 21, 2026.
• These guidelines apply to all court users, including lawyers, litigants, and witnesses, for documents produced in any proceeding.
• Expert witnesses must disclose genAI use in line with their code of conduct, but general document preparation does not require certification.
• Non-compliance can lead to document rejection, cost orders, procedural delays, and for lawyers, personal cost orders or Legal Profession Board proceedings.
• The court plans to regularly review these guidelines due to the rapid evolution of AI technology.

For lawyers specifically, the implications of not following the Australian lawyer AI use policy are particularly stringent.

The Supreme Court of Tasmania has issued comprehensive guidelines governing the use of generative artificial intelligence (genAI) in its proceedings. These new Tasmania Supreme Court generative AI guidelines are set to become effective on October 21, 2026, and will apply broadly to all individuals and entities involved in the court's processes. This includes lawyers, litigants, witnesses, third parties, and any other court users responsible for creating or submitting documents for any court proceeding. The overarching aim of these guidelines is to foster the responsible application of genAI technologies while simultaneously upholding and promoting public confidence in the judicial system.

The court's expectations are clear: all users must adhere to these directives. Notably, the guidelines specify that there is no requirement for court users to formally certify their use of genAI when preparing documents. However, a distinct obligation is placed upon expert witnesses, who are mandated to disclose any use of genAI in accordance with their existing responsibilities under the Expert Witness Code of Conduct. The court has also identified certain applications of genAI as inherently posing a higher risk to the proper administration of justice, specifically noting pleadings, written submissions, document lists, evidentiary materials such as affidavits and expert reports, and confidential, suppressed, or private information.

Familiarity with these Tasmania genAI court rules is crucial for legal professionals, as non-compliance carries significant repercussions. The guidelines outline several potential actions the court may take if users fail to adhere to these new directives, court orders, or specific directions when utilizing genAI for document preparation. Such failures could lead to the rejection of documents, orders for their re-preparation, or even their removal from the court file entirely. Furthermore, the court possesses the authority to order a party to bear costs as a consequence of non-compliance, and procedural delays are also a likely outcome.

For lawyers specifically, the implications of not following the Australian lawyer AI use policy are particularly stringent. Non-compliant legal practitioners could face personal cost orders, meaning they might be personally liable for expenses incurred due to their failure to adhere to the guidelines. More severely, such instances of non-compliance may result in a referral to the Legal Profession Board of Tasmania for formal proceedings, highlighting the importance of diligent adherence to the expert witness AI disclosure Tasmania requirements and all other aspects of the guidelines.

These October 2026 AI guidelines Tasmania represent a proactive step by the Supreme Court to address the evolving landscape of artificial intelligence. The guidelines are designed to remain in effect indefinitely, or "until further notice," acknowledging the dynamic nature of technological advancement. The court has explicitly stated its intention to regularly review its approach to genAI use, reflecting the rapid developments occurring within AI and genAI technologies. This commitment to ongoing assessment underscores the adaptive nature of judicial oversight in this nascent field.

The move by the Tasmania Supreme Court is part of a broader trend within Australian legal institutions. Other courts and tribunals have also begun to establish frameworks for AI use. For instance, in August, the Administrative Review Tribunal issued its own practice direction concerning genAI use in its proceedings, complementing it with an optional checklist to assist tribunal users in navigating their obligations. Similarly, in June, the County Court of Victoria released a practice note for court users and separate guidelines for judicial officers, articulating its expectations for the responsible integration of AI into court processes. This collective effort across jurisdictions emphasizes the growing recognition of AI's impact on legal practice and the administration of justice.

Lawyers and compliance officers practicing in Tasmania must familiarize themselves with these new guidelines for generative AI use, effective October 21, 2026, to ensure compliance in document preparation and expert witness disclosures, thereby avoiding potential sanctions like personal cost orders or Legal Profession Board proceedings.

Source: Original reporting via Australasian Lawyer.