The County Court of Victoria has issued a Practice Note on the use of artificial intelligence (‘AI’) by court users and separate guidelines for judicial officers1. The Practice Note and Guidelines commenced on 5 June 2026.
The new Practice Note contains substantially similar language to the Supreme Court’s ‘Use of Artificial Intelligence by Court Users’ Practice Note, which commenced on 14 May 20262. They are both informed by the same guiding principles identified by the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s ‘Artificial Intelligence in Victoria’s Courts and Tribunals Report’ published in October 20253. The Victorian Courts have outlined clear consequences for Court users and lawyers if they fail to comply. However, with the potential for greater access to justice, AI use is still encouraged so long as it is used with due diligence and accuracy.
Definition of AI
Both the County Court and Supreme Court Practice Notes adopt the AI definitions mentioned in the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s report. The broader ‘Artificial Intelligence (AI)’ definition comes from the OECD’s 2024 updated definition of AI4. Relevantly both Practice Notes have added that public AI tools are ‘trained on broad, often public datasets, most commonly for general purpose use’ to further contrast these tools with closed AI tools.
Privacy matters
The Practice Notes clearly distinguish the different privacy considerations that attach to public and closed AI tools. Court users have strict obligations against using public AI tools for the entering of confidential or sensitive information. Lawyers are further reminded of their obligations to maintain client confidentiality. By contrast, closed AI tools may be used to input confidential or sensitive information. However, Court users need to exercise caution and satisfy themselves by reviewing the contractual terms or privacy and confidentiality settings that the information they input will be kept within a secure environment.
Duties of all Court users
In addition to the obligations that claims have a proper basis under the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) and the responsibility for the accuracy of Court documents, Court users must be careful that their use of AI does not directly or indirectly mislead another participant in the litigation process or the Court about the nature of any work undertaken or the content produced by that AI tool. Court users should be aware that a failure to check for inaccuracies may result in costs orders.
Additional duties of lawyers
AI misuse may breach a lawyer’s obligations imposed by the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic), including the obligation of candour to the Court. It may also contravene their professional duties to act with competence and diligence, and to provide independent advice. The Practice Notes have made it clear that this will be taken seriously, and lawyers should be aware that if they rely on unverified AI outputs in Court documents, they may be referred to the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner and may be subject to personal costs orders.
Preparation of evidence
In light of the consequences for AI misuse mentioned above, particular emphasis is made on using generative AI (‘GenAI’) tools to assist in the preparation of affidavit materials, witness statements or other documents which form the evidence or potential evidence of a witness. In the Practice Notes, GenAI is defined as ‘software systems that generate content as text, images, music, audio and videos, based on a user’s prompts’. Court users and lawyers must ensure that Court documents are sworn/affirmed or finalised in a form that reflects that person’s own knowledge and words. Separately, expert reports must be prepared in compliance with the relevant Codes of Conduct or Practice Notes5.
Verification requirements
Court users should ensure that if GenAI has been used to produce material that they:
- fact-check and proofread;
- edit and adapt the content to suit the situation; and
- verify that any references to case law, legislation, textbooks or articles exist and stand for the legal positions attributed to them. Any extracts or quotes must be verified as accurate and attributed to the correct source, and it is not sufficient verification to ask an AI tool to confirm that the materials exist or contain the content that GenAI says they do.
Court users should be aware that they may be directed by the Court to provide further information about Court documents they have produced with the assistance of AI. They must also be prepared to identify the specific portions of Court documents which were produced using AI and be able to explain how the output was verified.
Footnotes
1 See link here
2 See link here and our article on it here
3 Victorian Law Reform Commission, Artificial Intelligence in Victoria’s Courts and Tribunals (Report, October 2025) https://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/publication/artificial-intelligence-in-victorias-courts-and-tribunals-report/
4 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence, OECD/LEGAL/0449, 3 May 2024, 7 https://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/publication/artificial-intelligence-in-victorias-courts-and-tribunals-report/
5 Expert Witness Code of Conduct applicable to civil trials (County Court Civil Procedure Rules 2018 (Vic), Form 44A) and Practice Notes PNCR 1-2025 Expert Evidence in Criminal Trials and PNCR 1-2017 Sentencing Hearings: Expert Reports on Mental Functioning of Offenders.