Legal AI means generative AI used for legal work: tools like CoCounsel, Protege, LEAP’s Matter AI and LawY that lawyers use to research and draft, and the general assistants like ChatGPT and Gemini that clients now ask first. In Australia, the Federal Court and the Supreme Courts of New South Wales and Victoria have each issued practice notes on how generative AI may be used in court documents, and the NSW, Victorian and WA regulators have set out what they expect from lawyers.
That is the half most articles cover. The other half is what happens before a client ever calls. On 24 September 2026 we asked four AI assistants 12 everyday legal questions and recorded every source they cited. Law firm pages made up 31% of the 373 citations, and ChatGPT did not cite a single law firm. This post covers both halves. None of it is legal advice.
Key findings
- Across 48 AI answers to 12 everyday Australian legal questions, 115 of 373 citations (31%) pointed to a law firm’s website. Government and court sites took 38%.
- ChatGPT cited 32 sources across its 12 answers, and every one was a government, court or legal aid site. Gemini cited a law firm page in all 12 of its answers.
- Two firms took 27 of the 115 law firm citations: Go To Court Lawyers (14, across 8 of the 12 questions) and Armstrong Legal (13).
- Only 1 of the 88 cited law firm pages we could fetch was a homepage. The median cited page was 1,711 words and 67% named a state or Australia in the title or main heading.
- Two of the four assistants answered “How do I get a restraining order in WA?” mostly with Washington State sources.
What people mean by legal AI
The search results show two audiences typing the same words. On 24 September 2026, the Google top 10 for “legal ai” in Australia opened with Victoria Legal Aid’s page on using AI for your own legal problem, then mixed vendor pages (Smokeball, LEAP, Thomson Reuters, LawY, Quillio) with the Law Society of NSW’s AI resources. “Legal ai” gets about 1,900 searches a month in Australia, and “free legal ai” about 1,000, which tells you plenty of the people searching are not lawyers.
So this post has two parts. Part one is for lawyers: the rules you work under and the tools on offer. Part two is for firm owners: what the AI assistants your clients use actually cite, and what that means for how your firm gets found. If you are working out how that fits with the rest of your marketing, our legal marketing page explains how we help firms with it.
The rules: court and regulator guidance on generative AI
Here is what we could verify on the official pages. Courts set rules for documents filed in their own proceedings, and the regulators set expectations for practice more broadly, so a firm working across jurisdictions may need to follow several of these at once.
| Body | Document | Date | Key points |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court of NSW | Practice Note SC Gen 23, Use of Generative AI | First issued 21 November 2024, reissued 28 January 2025, commenced 3 February 2025 | Gen AI must not be used to generate the content of affidavits, witness statements or character references. Where it helped with written submissions, the author must verify that every citation exists, is accurate and is relevant, and that check must not be done solely with an AI tool. Using it for expert reports needs the court’s leave. |
| Federal Court of Australia | Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Practice Note (GPN-AI) | 16 April 2026 | Use must be consistent with existing legal and professional duties. Disclosure is required where Gen AI was used to summarise or analyse information a witness relies on, to create multimedia, or in ways that might affect admissibility, and it goes at the start of the document. Warns about entering restricted or confidential information. |
| Supreme Court of Victoria | SC Gen 25, The use of Artificial Intelligence by Court users | 14 May 2026 (replaced the May 2024 guidelines) | “Content produced using AI must be verified with meaningful human control.” No confidential or suppressed information in a public AI tool. Lawyers who rely on unverified AI output may be referred to the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner and face personal costs orders. |
| Queensland courts | Practice directions on accuracy of references in submissions: Supreme Court PD 5 of 2025, District Court PD 12 of 2025, Planning and Environment Court PD 7 of 2025, Land Court PD 4 of 2025 | 2025 | Listed on the Queensland Courts page on using generative AI, alongside separate guidelines for non-lawyers and for judicial officers. |
| Law Society of NSW, Legal Practice Board of WA, Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner | Statement on the use of artificial intelligence in Australian legal practice | 6 December 2024 | Do not put confidential client information into public AI tools. Keep your own judgement, verify output, bill fairly for AI-assisted work, and be open with clients about when and how AI was used. |
| Law Society of NSW | A solicitor’s guide to responsible use of artificial intelligence | January 2026 version | Maps AI use against the Conduct Rules, including competence (rule 4) and confidentiality (rule 9). Says solicitors “should not rely on generative AI to verify sources produced by AI”, and notes a Victorian practitioner had his practising certificate varied after citing inaccurate authorities. |
Two things stand out. The rules have moved quickly, with the Federal Court and Victorian notes both new in 2026, so any internal AI policy written in 2024 is probably out of date. And every document lands on the same two duties: check everything the tool produces yourself, and keep client information out of public tools.
Consumers are getting guidance too. Victoria Legal Aid’s page on using AI for your legal problem, updated 8 July 2026, tells people not to rely on AI for legal advice and to tell the AI to use trusted sources “such as courts, legal aid commissions, community legal centres, government departments and Victorian law firms”. Legal Aid NSW has a similar page, last updated August 2026. Law firms are on that list of trusted sources, which matters for part two.
Legal AI tools available in Australia
This is not a ranking and we have not tested these tools on client work. It is a plain summary of what each vendor’s own page said on 24 September 2026. We have left out prices unless the vendor publishes one.
| Tool | Made for | What the vendor says it does | Australian detail on the vendor page |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protege (LexisNexis, formerly Lexis+ AI) | Lawyers | Drafting, research and analysis built on LexisNexis content. The page says “Lexis+ AI is now Protege”. | Australian product page |
| CoCounsel (Thomson Reuters) | Lawyers | AI across research, document analysis and drafting, with links back to source documents | Says CoCounsel (Australia) was IRAP assessed on 22 June 2026 against PROTECTED level controls |
| LEAP Matter AI and LawY | Lawyers using LEAP | Answers questions from the documents saved in a matter, drafts letters, and gives legal research answers that “can be vetted and verified by experienced and qualified practicing lawyers in your state” | Says these are “included in every LEAP subscription” |
| Archie (Smokeball) | Lawyers using Smokeball | Works inside the matter to summarise, draft and compare documents, and surfaces LawY’s guidance with the option of lawyer verification | “Legal Assistant for Australian Law Firms” |
| LawY | Lawyers | Research, first drafts, file analysis and contract review, with optional human verification | “Validated performance across Australia & the UK”. Lists $39 a month. |
| Harvey | Law firms and professional services | Agents for legal work, document storage and bulk analysis, legal and regulatory research | None stated on the homepage. Named as an example tool in the Federal Court practice note. |
| Habeas | Lawyers | Research “grounded in real Australian case law and legislation, cited to paragraph level”, plus drafting | Says conversations are stored on Australian servers |
| Quillio | Lawyers, businesses and individuals | Document review, chronologies and Word-based drafting | “Built in Australia”. Offers a free start. |
| LawConnect (LEAP) | The public | Explains your legal situation in plain words and can connect you with a lawyer | “Free To navigate your situation. You only pay if you hire.” |
| Ask.Legal | The public and businesses | Legal analysis across Commonwealth, state and territory law, and document generation | “Built for Australian Law”. Starts with free tokens. |
If you are choosing between them, the court rules above give you the test questions. Where does my client data go? Does every answer link to a source I can open and check? Is it built on Australian law, and does it know which state I am in? A vendor that cannot answer those clearly is not ready for client work, whatever the demo looks like.
The client side: we asked AI 12 everyday legal questions
Most legal AI coverage stops at the tools. But the bigger change for a firm’s pipeline is on the client side. Someone whose landlord is keeping their bond, or who has just been charged with drink driving, may now ask an AI assistant before they call anyone. So we tested what those assistants send them to read.
On 24 September 2026 we asked ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini and Google AI Mode the same 12 questions, with web search on, and recorded every cited link. The questions were: Can my landlord keep my bond in NSW? How is property split in a divorce in Australia? Do I need a lawyer to contest a will in Queensland? What happens if I get caught drink driving in Victoria? Can I be fired without warning in Australia? How long do I have to make a claim after a car accident in NSW? Who gets custody of the kids after separation in Australia? How do I get a restraining order in WA? Is a handwritten will legal in South Australia? What happens if I die without a will in NSW? Do I need a conveyancer to buy a house in Victoria? How do I fight a speeding fine in Queensland?
That gave us 48 answers and 373 citations from 165 different websites. We sorted every site by hand into government and courts, law firms (including conveyancers), legal aid, community legal centres, other businesses, and a small “everything else” group.
ChatGPT sent people to government, Gemini sent them to law firms
The four assistants behaved very differently, which is the most useful finding for any firm deciding where to put effort.
| Assistant | Citations | Law firm citations | Answers citing at least one law firm | Government, legal aid and community legal centre share |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ChatGPT | 32 | 0 (0%) | 0 of 12 | 100% |
| Perplexity | 179 | 44 (25%) | 11 of 12 | 59% |
| Gemini | 94 | 48 (51%) | 12 of 12 | 36% |
| Google AI Mode | 68 | 23 (34%) | 9 of 12 | 57% |
| All four | 373 | 115 (31%) | 32 of 48 | 56% |
ChatGPT cited only two to four sources per answer, and every one was official: NSW Government, Fair Work, the Federal Circuit and Family Court, Legal Aid Queensland and the like. For these questions, ChatGPT’s front door does not lead to any law firm. Gemini was the opposite: half its citations were law firm pages and it cited at least one firm in every answer. Perplexity cited the most sources, about 15 per answer, with a quarter from firms.
Being cited is not the same as being recommended, though. The answers used firm pages as sources for the law, not as a shortlist of who to call. The only answer that showed a firm’s name at all was Google AI Mode on WA restraining orders, where Go To Court Lawyers and Armstrong Legal appeared on the source cards. The value to a firm is the click from a person reading about their own problem, which is the same person who may need a lawyer next week. We compare the assistants more broadly in our ChatGPT vs Gemini vs Perplexity test, and cover ChatGPT’s own sourcing in how law firms get recommended by ChatGPT.
Which law firms won the citations
A total of 72 different firms were cited, across 101 different pages. Most appeared once. Two did not.
| Firm | Citations | Questions it was cited on (of 12) | Assistants that cited it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Go To Court Lawyers | 14 | 8 | Perplexity, Gemini, Google AI Mode |
| Armstrong Legal | 13 | 4 | Perplexity, Google AI Mode |
| Gerard Malouf and Partners | 4 | 3 | Perplexity |
| Landers and Rogers | 2 | 2 | Gemini, Google AI Mode |
| Parke Lawyers | 2 | 2 | Perplexity |
| 67 other firms | 80 | 1 or 2 each | Mixed |
What Go To Court and Armstrong Legal have in common is a page for the exact question in the exact state. Their cited pages had titles like “Drink Driving Penalties (Vic)”, “Grounds For Contesting A Will (Qld)”, “Dying Intestate (NSW)” and “Received a Speeding Fine in Queensland”. Both run a library of pages, one topic per state, and the assistants kept landing on it. Maurice Blackburn, one of the best-known names in Australian law, was cited twice.
What the cited law firm pages have in common
We fetched all 101 cited law firm pages and could read 88 of them. Here is what they share.
- They are topic pages, not homepages. Only 1 of the 88 was a homepage. About 39% were blog or article pages and the rest were practice area or guide pages.
- They name the place. 67% put a state or “Australia” in the title or main heading, such as “Contesting a Will in Queensland” or “Restraining Orders in Western Australia”.
- They are thorough. The median page was 1,711 words, and the middle half ran from about 1,090 to 2,480 words.
- They cite the law. 65% named at least one Act, such as the Succession Act or the Family Law Act.
- They show who wrote them and when. 84% carried a published or modified date in their structured data and 61% named an author or reviewer on the page or in its structured data.
- Many answer in questions. Half had three or more headings written as questions, and 40% had an FAQ section.
We did not compare these against pages that were not cited, so read this as a description of what wins, not proof of cause. It does fit Victoria Legal Aid’s advice to users, which is to ask AI for trusted sources, law firms included. The cited pages look like pages a careful reader would trust: specific, dated, signed and tied to the actual legislation.
The WA question shows why naming the place in full matters. Asked “How do I get a restraining order in WA?”, Gemini answered entirely for Washington State, citing county sites for Spokane, King, Pierce and Snohomish counties. Perplexity cited mostly Washington State sources too. ChatGPT and Google AI Mode answered for Western Australia. A firm page titled “Restraining Orders in Western Australia” leaves no room for that mistake.
The front door has moved: what this means for your firm
For someone who asks an AI assistant first, the first thing they read about their problem is not your homepage or a Google results page. It is an answer built from a handful of sources, and 56% of those sources were government, legal aid or community legal centres. The share left over for firms is real, but it goes to firms with a page for the specific question.
- Write one page per common question, per state you practise in. Start with the questions your intake team hears every week. Go To Court’s library is the model to study, even if you only cover one state.
- Name the state, the Act and the date. Put the state in the title, cite the legislation, and show when the page was last reviewed and by which lawyer. Our guide to schema markup for AI search covers how to mark up authors and dates.
- Link to the official sources. The assistants lean on government and legal aid pages anyway. Linking to them from your page makes it easier to trust, and it is good practice.
- Do not ignore ChatGPT, but do not build only for it. On these questions ChatGPT cited no firms at all, while Gemini and Google AI Mode cited firms often. Our explainer on what GEO is covers how to work across all of them.
- Keep the conduct rules in view. An information page is still advertising. Keep claims factual and avoid anything that promises an outcome, as we set out in our law firm SEO guide.
The local side still matters for people who want a lawyer nearby, and our guide to local SEO for lawyers covers it. But for clients who ask an AI first, the information pages are where the journey starts.
How we did this research
All data was collected on 24 September 2026. Each of the 12 questions was asked once of ChatGPT, Perplexity and Gemini through their API versions with web search on, and of Google AI Mode for Australia. ChatGPT was given an Australian city matching each question and Perplexity an Australian country setting; Gemini had no location setting, which likely explains its Washington State answer. These are not the consumer apps, and AI answers vary from run to run, as we measured in our repeat-prompt study.
We counted every distinct cited URL per answer, 373 in total, and classified all 165 domains by hand, checking homepages where unsure. Conveyancing firms and barristers’ chambers were counted as law firms. We then fetched the 101 cited law firm pages and measured them with a script; 13 blocked us or timed out. The court and regulator table was checked against each official page or document the same day. Search volumes are monthly averages from Australian search data. Twelve questions is a small sample and consumer questions only; commercial and business law questions may behave differently.
Frequently asked questions
What’s the best AI for legal work?
There is no single best tool, because the jobs differ. Tools built on legal content, such as CoCounsel, Protege or Habeas, are designed for research with checkable sources, while LEAP and Smokeball build AI into practice management. General assistants like ChatGPT are not legal research tools, and the NSW and Victorian court rules require you to verify their output yourself.
Is there a ChatGPT for legal?
Yes, several tools work like ChatGPT but are built for lawyers, including CoCounsel, Protege, Harvey and LawY. The Federal Court’s practice note names ChatGPT, Claude, Harvey, Gemini and Copilot as examples of generative AI tools. Whichever you use, the same rules on verification and confidentiality apply.
Is there a free legal AI service available in Australia?
Some consumer tools have free options. LawConnect says it is free to navigate your situation and you only pay if you hire a lawyer, and Ask.Legal starts users with free tokens. For free legal help from a person, state legal aid commissions and community legal centres remain the main option, and Victoria Legal Aid publishes advice on using AI safely.
Can lawyers use ChatGPT in Australia?
Yes, but with limits. The joint statement from the NSW, Victorian and WA regulators says not to enter confidential client information into public AI tools, and to verify everything. In NSW courts, Gen AI must not be used to generate the content of affidavits, witness statements or character references.
Do I have to tell the court I used AI?
It depends on the court and the document. The Federal Court requires disclosure at the start of a document in set situations, such as where AI summarised information a witness relies on. NSW requires affidavits and witness statements to state that Gen AI was not used to generate their content, and submissions to confirm citations were verified.
Do AI assistants recommend law firms?
For everyday legal questions, they mostly cite firms as sources rather than recommend them. In our test, 31% of citations went to law firm pages, but ChatGPT cited none, and no answer told the reader to call a particular firm.
Getting your firm into the answer
If you want to know which of your pages the AI assistants already use, and which questions in your practice areas they send to someone else, that is the work we do for firms. See our marketing for law firms page, or our AI SEO services for the wider approach.
