Login
How Bell CJ’s AI practice note will affect lawyers
Following Chief Justice Andrew Bell’s issuing of a partial ban on AI in court proceedings in NSW, a firm CEO has outlined the potential consequences and implications that may arise for law firms and legal practitioners due to this practice note.
Grace Robbie
On 3 February 2025, Chief Justice Andrew Bell of the NSW Supreme Court enacted the NSW Supreme Court Practice Note SC Gen 23, which imposed substantial restrictions on using generative AI in legal proceedings.
Additionally, a week before the ban came into effect, His Honour also placed a blanket ban on using open- or closed-sourced programs to scour material that falls under a non-publication or suppression order.
This practice note has sparked considerable discussion within the legal sector, raising inquiries regarding the potential ramifications of this decision on legal practitioners and law firms throughout the state.
Dannielle Ford, the co-owner and CEO of Cheney Suthers Lawyers, said that regardless of whether you have incorporated or limited the use of AI within your practice, the practice note has positioned NSW lawyers “at the crossroads of tradition and technology advancement”.
In light of this ban, Ford addressed the far-reaching implications that both legal practitioners and law firms will need to navigate due to implementing the practice note, “requiring them to navigate an evolving environment with new ethical and compliance considerations”.
Ethical and compliance uncertainties
One of the most significant implications identified by Ford is that this ban will necessitate law firms to establish comprehensive and robust international policies to ensure compliance with the restrictions outlined in the practice note.
“With the prohibition on generative AI in court proceedings, law firms will need to establish stringent internal policies and monitoring mechanisms to ensure compliance,” Ford said.
Ford also highlighted the necessity for legal practitioners to improve their diligence in “reviewing evidence provided by clients to verify that no AI-generated content has been included”.
In light of this, Ford noted that legal professionals now bear the responsibility for educating their clients about the ban and the associated risks of AI usage to prevent inadvertent violations of the practice note.
“Lawyers may also need to educate their clients about the restrictions and risks associated with generative AI to prevent any unintentional breaches of the practice note,” Ford said.
Increased workload and reduced efficiency
Ford underscored how GenAI has greatly streamlined various tasks within the legal profession, such as assisting in drafting affidavits, summarising legal documents, and revising contracts.
By integrating this technology into their daily operations, she indicated that it has “significantly reduced the time and effort required to perform routine legal work”.
However, with the imposition of the ban, Ford articulated that this development would compel law firms to revert to “more traditional methods of research and drafting”. Consequently, she indicated how this transition would impose “additional demands on legal professionals”.
Ford contended that this situation represents a growing challenge for smaller law firms, which often possess limited resources and personnel.
“For smaller, regional firms like ours at Cheney Suthers, where resources and staff are more limited, this could pose significant challenges. Unlike larger firms that can easily reallocate work among teams, we may face increased workloads that could lead to longer turnaround times for legal documents and impact the overall efficiency of our practice,” Ford said.
Higher legal costs to clients
GenAI has served as an “instrumental tool” in aiding law firms in decreasing their billable hours through “automating research and drafting”. However, Ford highlighted the likelihood that the practice note will lead to increased legal costs for clients.
The absence of AI tools to streamline these processes will necessitate that legal professionals allocate more time to these tasks, ultimately resulting in higher fees for clients.
Need for internal compliance measures
To adhere to the new restrictions outlined in the practice note, Ford explained that law firms will need to implement “clear internal protocols” regarding the use of gen AI tools.
As a result, Ford suggested that “firms should educate all staff on the provisions of the practice note and develop firm policies on when and how AI tools can be used”.
