Aug 31, 2026 · 16 min · 9 segments
Send us your feedback In this episode, Senior Associates Alex Church and Oliver Sutton discuss how artificial intelligence is transforming…
Alex ChurchHost
Oliver SuttonGuest
The question we're fielding regularly from clients is, if they or their external lawyers use AI to draft submissions or prepare evidence, does that need to be disclosed to the court?

So at present, the rules in New Zealand aren't as prescriptive as in Australia.

So, for example, the New South Wales Supreme Court has got a practice note effective from the start of 2025 That requires all affidavits, witness statements and character references to contain an express disclosure that AI was not used to generate them.

The rationale behind that is that these documents are supposed to reflect a person's own knowledge and using AI doesn't reflect that.

But my understanding is that doesn't apply to expert reports, for example, or to legal submissions.


Well, just last week, Alex, the High Court of Ireland issued a practice note and that has similar obligations.

If people make witness statements or affidavits, they have to include a declaration in the opening paragraph saying they have not used generative artificial intelligence for the purpose of generating content.

You can use it for spell checking and expert reports have a similar requirement and again, require upfront disclosure of when artificial intelligence has been used.

The Civil Justice Council's interim report in 2025 recommended lawyers should retain responsibility for AI-assisted outputs.

And they did propose a framework for mandatory disclosure in certain categories.

Some of those developments you talk about in Australia and Ireland and the prohibitions on the use of AI in witness statements and affidavits seem a little at odds with, I guess, how we're seeing AI used in practice day to day in business and in our jobs as well to assist with preparing documents, chronology, spell checking.

If we compare the position overseas to the position here in New Zealand, what have we seen?

Well, here in New Zealand, we've got guidelines, formal guidelines from 2023, but we don't have a binding practice note from the High Court here yet.

The practical point is New Zealand is likely to be guided by the Australian and Ireland approach.

So it's sensible to have AI governance in place before that happens rather than after.

So that sounds like sort of watch this space in terms of development in New Zealand.

The question we're fielding regularly from clients is, if they or their external lawyers use AI to draft submissions or prepare evidence, does that need to be disclosed to the court?

So at present, the rules in New Zealand aren't as prescriptive as in Australia.

So, for example, the New South Wales Supreme Court has got a practice note effective from the start of 2025 That requires all affidavits, witness statements and character references to contain an express disclosure that AI was not used to generate them.

The rationale behind that is that these documents are supposed to reflect a person's own knowledge and using AI doesn't reflect that.

But my understanding is that doesn't apply to expert reports, for example, or to legal submissions.


Well, just last week, Alex, the High Court of Ireland issued a practice note and that has similar obligations.

If people make witness statements or affidavits, they have to include a declaration in the opening paragraph saying they have not used generative artificial intelligence for the purpose of generating content.

You can use it for spell checking and expert reports have a similar requirement and again, require upfront disclosure of when artificial intelligence has been used.

The Civil Justice Council's interim report in 2025 recommended lawyers should retain responsibility for AI-assisted outputs.

And they did propose a framework for mandatory disclosure in certain categories.

Some of those developments you talk about in Australia and Ireland and the prohibitions on the use of AI in witness statements and affidavits seem a little at odds with, I guess, how we're seeing AI used in practice day to day in business and in our jobs as well to assist with preparing documents, chronology, spell checking.

If we compare the position overseas to the position here in New Zealand, what have we seen?

Well, here in New Zealand, we've got guidelines, formal guidelines from 2023, but we don't have a binding practice note from the High Court here yet.

The practical point is New Zealand is likely to be guided by the Australian and Ireland approach.

So it's sensible to have AI governance in place before that happens rather than after.

So that sounds like sort of watch this space in terms of development in New Zealand.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.