2026-2027 LLH302 Assessment 1- Submission to
Law Reform Review Queensland University of
Technology
LLH302 Assessment 1:
Submission to Law Reform
Review
, Consultation Question 1 - Are the ASCR 2023 adequate and sufficient to deal with risks
identified by PD 5?
The Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2023 (ASCR) are broadly capable of regulating the
risks raised by Supreme Court of Queensland Practice Direction 5 of 2025 (PD 5).1 The
ASCR already impose the court's obligations of honesty and competence, which apply where
generative artificial intelligence (AI) is used.2 However, PD 5 establishes a special
verification and accountability mechanism for AI-assisted submissions, which is not explicitly
represented in the ASCR.3 A tailored adjustment (or rule-status remark) would thereby
improve compliance and lessen the possibility of disciplinary referrals.4
PD 5 responds to two predictable generative-AI failure modes in litigation. First, AI can
produce citations like fictitious cases, laws, or other legal sources that appear authorised but
are incorrect, including by fabricating non-existent citations.5 Second, AI can be used to
develop or reformulate the language of submissions that alter meaning and create false
confidence in the accuracy of arguments.6 PD 5 treats reliance on such material as having the
potential to deceive the Court, compromising the credibility of the procedure, and damaging
public trust.7
In response, PD 5 mandates that the responsible person(s) (including individual legal
practitioner, not just the firm) be identified for submissions made in writing.8 Moreover, it
stipulates an obligation to guarantee that the submission conveys the practitioner's expertise
and to verify the reliability and significance of references.9 PD 5 then permits the court to
refer the practitioner to the Legal Services Commissioner (LSC) and/or compel the
practitioner to justify why an individual costs order should not be issued.10
1
Queensland Law Society, Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2023 (Web Page) (‘ASCR 2023’)
<https://www.qls.com.au/content-collections/guides/australian-solicitors-conduct-rules-2023>.
2
Ibid.
3
Supreme Court of Queensland, Practice Direction 5 of 2025: Accuracy of References in Submissions (Practice
Direction, 24 September 2025) (‘PD 5’) [1]–[4].
4
PD 5 (n 3) [14.2].
5
Margie Alsbrook, ‘Untangling Unreliable Citations’ (2024) 37(3) Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 1, 5.
6
Youssef Abdel Latif, ‘Hallucinations in Large Language Models and Their Influence on Legal Reasoning:
Examining the Risks of AI-Generated Factual Inaccuracies in Judicial Processes’ (2025) 10(2) Journal of
Computational Intelligence, Machine Reasoning, and Decision-Making 10, 16
<https://morphpublishing.com/index.php/JCIMRD/article/view/2025-02-07>; PD 5 (n 3) [2].
7
PD 5 (n 3) [3].
8
PD 5 (n 3) [5]–[6].
9
PD 5 (n 3) [9]–[12].
10
PD 5 (n 3) [14].
Law Reform Review Queensland University of
Technology
LLH302 Assessment 1:
Submission to Law Reform
Review
, Consultation Question 1 - Are the ASCR 2023 adequate and sufficient to deal with risks
identified by PD 5?
The Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2023 (ASCR) are broadly capable of regulating the
risks raised by Supreme Court of Queensland Practice Direction 5 of 2025 (PD 5).1 The
ASCR already impose the court's obligations of honesty and competence, which apply where
generative artificial intelligence (AI) is used.2 However, PD 5 establishes a special
verification and accountability mechanism for AI-assisted submissions, which is not explicitly
represented in the ASCR.3 A tailored adjustment (or rule-status remark) would thereby
improve compliance and lessen the possibility of disciplinary referrals.4
PD 5 responds to two predictable generative-AI failure modes in litigation. First, AI can
produce citations like fictitious cases, laws, or other legal sources that appear authorised but
are incorrect, including by fabricating non-existent citations.5 Second, AI can be used to
develop or reformulate the language of submissions that alter meaning and create false
confidence in the accuracy of arguments.6 PD 5 treats reliance on such material as having the
potential to deceive the Court, compromising the credibility of the procedure, and damaging
public trust.7
In response, PD 5 mandates that the responsible person(s) (including individual legal
practitioner, not just the firm) be identified for submissions made in writing.8 Moreover, it
stipulates an obligation to guarantee that the submission conveys the practitioner's expertise
and to verify the reliability and significance of references.9 PD 5 then permits the court to
refer the practitioner to the Legal Services Commissioner (LSC) and/or compel the
practitioner to justify why an individual costs order should not be issued.10
1
Queensland Law Society, Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2023 (Web Page) (‘ASCR 2023’)
<https://www.qls.com.au/content-collections/guides/australian-solicitors-conduct-rules-2023>.
2
Ibid.
3
Supreme Court of Queensland, Practice Direction 5 of 2025: Accuracy of References in Submissions (Practice
Direction, 24 September 2025) (‘PD 5’) [1]–[4].
4
PD 5 (n 3) [14.2].
5
Margie Alsbrook, ‘Untangling Unreliable Citations’ (2024) 37(3) Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 1, 5.
6
Youssef Abdel Latif, ‘Hallucinations in Large Language Models and Their Influence on Legal Reasoning:
Examining the Risks of AI-Generated Factual Inaccuracies in Judicial Processes’ (2025) 10(2) Journal of
Computational Intelligence, Machine Reasoning, and Decision-Making 10, 16
<https://morphpublishing.com/index.php/JCIMRD/article/view/2025-02-07>; PD 5 (n 3) [2].
7
PD 5 (n 3) [3].
8
PD 5 (n 3) [5]–[6].
9
PD 5 (n 3) [9]–[12].
10
PD 5 (n 3) [14].
