Credits: gr stocks (Unsplash)
AI can save time and produce impressive legal documents. But when the advice is wrong, who takes responsibility?
Who Should Read This?
If your current legal strategy is:
- Ask ChatGPT.
- Feel reassured.
- Carry on with complete confidence.
…you might want to keep reading.
This article is for business owners, founders, creatives and anyone tempted to swap legal advice for a chatbot because it feels quicker, cheaper or “probably good enough”. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it really isn’t.
Can AI Replace Your Lawyer? What Queen Elizabeth I Already Knew
AI can save time and produce impressive legal documents. But when the advice is wrong, who takes responsibility?
In 1589, an English clergyman named William Lee invented something extraordinary: the stocking frame, the world’s first knitting machine. Proud of his invention, he travelled to London hoping Queen Elizabeth I would grant him a royal patent.
Instead, she reportedly refused.
According to a well-known account, she warned him:
“Consider thou what the invention could do to my poor subjects. It would assuredly bring to them ruin by depriving them of employment, thus making them beggars.”
Modern historians point out that this quotation probably didn’t appear until centuries later, so it is more legend than verbatim history. But whether or not those were her exact words, the fear behind them was very real.
People have always worried that new technology will replace skilled professionals.
More than 400 years later, we’re hearing exactly the same concern again. This time the invention isn’t a knitting machine. It’s artificial intelligence.
As an intellectual property, technology and commercial lawyer who has advised Australian businesses for more than 25 years, I hear the question regularly:
“Can AI replace my lawyer?”
My answer is simple.
No.
But it can make a good lawyer even better.
We use AI too — but differently
Let’s get one thing out of the way.
AI is an extraordinary tool.
At Sharon Givoni Consulting, we use AI ourselves to help analyse lengthy documents, summarise material, brainstorm ideas and improve efficiency.
But that’s exactly what it is.
A tool.
Every piece of legal advice that leaves our office is reviewed through the lens of legal experience, commercial judgment and professional responsibility.
Think of AI as an exceptionally fast graduate lawyer. It can gather information quickly, but it still needs someone experienced to ask the right questions, identify what matters, understand your commercial objectives and spot the risks that software simply can’t.
That is the difference between generating text and providing legal advice.
Where AI is genuinely useful
Used properly, AI can save businesses considerable time.
It can help prepare first drafts of contracts, explain unfamiliar legal concepts in plain English, summarise legislation, organise research, compare documents and even suggest questions you should ask your lawyer.
Those are all valuable uses.
The problem starts when people assume the answer it gives is necessarily correct.
Unlike a lawyer, AI doesn’t actually know whether it is right.
It predicts the next most likely words based on patterns in data. Sometimes the result is excellent. Sometimes it is completely wrong. The difficulty is that it often sounds equally confident in both situations.
AI is already getting it wrong in Australian courtrooms
This isn’t a theoretical concern.
Australian courts have already seen numerous examples of lawyers relying on AI-generated material that turned out to be inaccurate or entirely fabricated.
In February 2025, an Australian lawyer was referred to the NSW Office of the Legal Services Commissioner after filing court documents in an immigration matter containing non-existent cases and fabricated quotations generated by ChatGPT. The Court spent considerable time attempting to locate authorities that simply did not exist.
Later that year, a Victorian solicitor became the first lawyer in Australia to face professional sanctions over AI-generated authorities after relying on fictitious cases. He lost his entitlement to practise as a principal and must work under supervision for two years.
In Western Australia, another lawyer was ordered to pay more than $8,000 in costs after relying on Claude AI for legal research. Several of the authorities cited either did not exist or had been inaccurately described.
Perhaps most remarkably, a King’s Counsel appearing in a Victorian Supreme Court murder trial had to apologise after written submissions prepared by the defence team included fabricated authorities and incorrectly attributed parliamentary material generated by AI, delaying the delivery of the judgment.
The issue has become so significant that the Federal Court of Australia has now issued a dedicated Generative AI Practice Note, requiring lawyers and litigants to understand AI’s limitations and carefully verify AI-generated material before it is presented to the Court.
If experienced lawyers, barristers and King’s Counsel can be caught out by AI’s confident mistakes, imagine the risks for a business owner relying on a chatbot to prepare a trade mark application, review a food label or interpret Australia’s consumer protection laws.
Why AI still can’t replace a lawyer
The issue isn’t whether AI is intelligent.
The issue is whether it can exercise legal judgment.
That’s a very different skill.
Experience
Every business is different.
Two companies selling similar products can require completely different legal advice depending on their commercial objectives, competitors, risk appetite and previous dealings.
That judgment comes from experience, not pattern recognition.
Context
Legal advice isn’t simply answering a question.
It is understanding why the question is being asked.
A trade mark application may affect future expansion overseas.
A product label might trigger obligations under consumer law, food regulation and intellectual property law simultaneously.
A chatbot cannot reliably identify those broader commercial considerations.
Accountability
When a lawyer gives advice, we stand behind it.
Lawyers owe professional duties to their clients and to the courts. We are regulated, carry professional indemnity insurance and can be held accountable if our advice falls below the required standard.
AI accepts no responsibility for the consequences of its answers.
Keeping up with Australian law
Australian law changes constantly.
New legislation is passed.
Courts deliver new decisions.
Regulators such as the ACCC, OAIC, IP Australia and Food Standards Australia New Zealand regularly update guidance.
Even where AI can access current information, it cannot reliably determine which sources are authoritative, whether legislation has been amended, whether a case has been overturned or how recent developments apply to your particular circumstances.
That remains the role of an experienced lawyer.
Nuance
Many of the areas in which we practise—including intellectual property, trade marks, copyright, food and beverage law, consumer protection and technology law—are full of grey areas.
Often there isn’t one correct answer.
There are different levels of legal risk.
Choosing the right path requires judgment.
What this means for your business
AI can certainly help you prepare a first draft.
But would you rely on it alone to:
- file your trade mark without assessing whether another mark is deceptively similar?
- decide whether your food label complies with Australian consumer laws and food standards?
- prepare website terms and conditions that reflect how your business actually operates?
- draft a privacy policy that genuinely reflects your data collection practices?
- prepare an influencer agreement without dealing properly with intellectual property ownership?
Those are the sorts of issues where getting it slightly wrong can become very expensive.
Frequently asked questions about AI and legal advice
Can ChatGPT replace a lawyer?
No.
AI can explain legal concepts, prepare draft documents and assist with research, but it cannot provide tailored legal advice based on your particular circumstances or accept responsibility for its recommendations.
Is ChatGPT accurate for Australian law?
Not always.
AI systems have repeatedly produced inaccurate legal information, including fabricated court decisions and incorrect legal analysis. Australian courts have already dealt with multiple cases involving these errors.
Can AI draft contracts?
Yes.
But producing words is only part of the job.
A contract also needs to reflect your commercial objectives, manage legal risks and comply with Australian law.
Can AI help with trade marks?
It can explain the registration process.
It cannot reliably assess whether your proposed trade mark is likely to be opposed, whether another mark is deceptively similar or what filing strategy will best protect your business.
Should businesses use AI?
Absolutely.
The smartest businesses will use AI where it adds value.
The smartest businesses will also know when they need experienced legal advice before making important commercial decisions.
AI won’t replace good lawyers
William Lee’s knitting machine didn’t eliminate knitting.
It transformed the industry.
The same is happening with AI.
Lawyers who refuse to embrace AI will probably struggle.
Lawyers who rely on it blindly will struggle too.
The future belongs to lawyers who understand both technology and the law—and know where one ends and the other begins.
At Sharon Givoni Consulting, we embrace technology while recognising its limits. We combine modern AI tools with more than 25 years of experience advising Australian businesses on intellectual property, trade marks, copyright, food and beverage law, consumer protection, technology and commercial law.
Even the Federal Court Says AI Needs Human Oversight
In 2026, the Federal Court of Australia issued a Generative AI Practice Note. It doesn’t ban AI—in fact, it recognises that AI can save time and improve efficiency. But it also makes one thing very clear: AI is a tool, not a substitute for human judgment.
The Court expects lawyers to:
- understand AI’s limitations before relying on it;
- check that AI-generated cases, quotes and legal authorities are real and accurate;
- verify facts rather than assuming AI has got them right; and
- remain personally responsible for everything filed with the Court.
It’s a useful reminder for businesses too. AI can be incredibly helpful, but when it comes to important legal decisions, it still needs an experienced human to check the work.
Read the Federal Court’s Generative AI Practice Note:
https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/law-and-practice/practice-documents/practice-notes/gpn-ai?utm_source=chatgpt.com
AI can help you ask better questions.
We help you find the right answers.
If you’re launching a brand, protecting an idea, developing a new product or simply want legal advice you can rely on, we’d love to help. Contact Sharon Givoni Consulting to discuss how we can protect your business before small legal issues become expensive ones.
Thinking of Filing Your Own Trade Mark? Think Again
Should you use a trade mark lawyer, or is DIY good enough? Here’s why trade mark applications can be more complicated than they first appear.
https://sharongivoni.com.au/insights/
ChatGPT Can Chat. We Give Legal Advice.
How Sharon Givoni Consulting uses AI responsibly—and why technology should support legal judgment, not replace it.
https://sharongivoni.com.au/insights/
Can AI Really “Create” a Brand for You?
What Australian businesses need to know about using AI to develop brand names, and the intellectual property issues that can arise.
https://sharongivoni.com.au/insights/
Please note the above article is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice.
Please email us info@iplegal.com.au if you need legal advice about your brand or another legal matter in this area generally.