The Federal Court of Australia today published Practice Note GPN-AI, its first formal guidance on the use of generative AI in federal proceedings. Chief Justice Debra Mortimer issued the practice note alongside a media release confirming that it applies immediately to all persons who appear before or file documents with the Court.
The practice note is measured and practical. It does not ban AI. It does not restrict specific tools. What it does is make one thing very clear: every person remains fully accountable for every piece of content they put before the Court, regardless of whether AI helped produce it.
For law firms running WordPress websites, that principle extends well beyond the courtroom.
What GPN-AI actually requires
The core expectations are straightforward. Anyone using generative AI in connection with Federal Court proceedings must understand its capabilities and limitations. Use must not adversely affect the administration of justice. And if the Court requires it, a person must disclose if and how AI was used.
The practice note identifies specific danger zones. Generative AI can produce fictitious cases, incorrect legal citations, and factual errors. It can confirm inaccurate information when asked. These are not theoretical risks. They are documented behaviours of tools like ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Copilot, all of which the Court names directly in the practice note.
For evidentiary materials, disclosure obligations are explicit. Where AI was used to summarise or analyse information that a witness relies upon, or to create images, video, or multimedia presented to the Court, that use must be disclosed at the start of the document.
The consequences for noncompliance include adverse costs orders and questions about professional obligations.
Why this matters for law firm websites
Here is where this becomes relevant to web development and content strategy.
Law firm websites are not courtroom submissions. Nobody is going to cite your practice area page in an affidavit. But the principles underpinning GPN-AI apply directly to how legal practices present themselves online.
The practice note exists because AI generated content can be inaccurate, misleading, and entirely fabricated while appearing authoritative. That risk does not disappear when the output is published on a WordPress page instead of filed in court.
Consider a law firm that uses generative AI to draft its website content. The AI produces a practice area page about commercial litigation. It includes a paragraph referencing a legal principle. The phrasing sounds correct. It reads well. But the principle is subtly wrong, or the jurisdiction is mixed up, or the statute reference does not exist. That content now sits on a public website, building trust with potential clients on the basis of information that no lawyer has verified.
This is not speculation. We have seen AI generated legal content contain references to legislation that does not apply in Australia and case citations that do not exist. If the Federal Court considers these risks serious enough to warrant a formal practice note, law firms should consider them serious enough to warrant a content review on their own websites.
The WordPress content problem
Many law firm websites are built on WordPress. It is the platform we specialise in for law firm website design, and for good reason: it offers full ownership, clean architecture, and flexibility that proprietary platforms cannot match.
But WordPress also makes publishing easy. That is both its strength and, in the context of AI generated content, a potential risk.
A lawyer or marketing coordinator can paste AI generated text into the Gutenberg editor and hit publish in seconds. There is no built in verification layer. No automated fact check. No system that flags a hallucinated case citation before it goes live. The platform is neutral. The responsibility sits entirely with the person publishing.
GPN-AI reinforces a principle that applies equally to website content: the person whose name is on the document is accountable for its accuracy. For a law firm website, that means the practice principal or the lawyer responsible for the content.
What law firms should do right now
If your firm has used generative AI to draft or assist with any website content, now is the time to audit it.
Review every practice area page. Confirm that legal principles are stated accurately, that any referenced legislation is current and applies in your jurisdiction, and that no fabricated authorities appear anywhere on the site.
Check your blog content. If your firm publishes thought leadership articles and any were drafted with AI assistance, verify every factual claim. This includes references to court decisions, regulatory changes, and procedural requirements.
Audit your image usage. GPN-AI specifically addresses AI generated images and multimedia. If your website uses AI generated imagery, particularly on pages discussing legal services, consider whether that aligns with the trust signals your firm wants to project. We discussed the broader implications of AI website builders vs custom WordPress development earlier this year, and the same logic applies to visual content.
Establish a content governance process. Every piece of content published on your firm’s website should be reviewed by a qualified person before it goes live. This is not new advice, but GPN-AI makes it harder to ignore.
Document your AI usage. The Court expects parties to be in a position to explain what AI was used, how it was used, and for what purpose. Maintaining a similar internal record for website content is prudent. It protects the firm and builds a culture of accountability.
We wrote in detail about the responsible AI framework for Sydney businesses earlier this year, including the Australian Government’s AI6 essential practices. GPN-AI sits alongside that framework as another signal that governance is catching up to adoption.
Confidentiality is a website issue too
Section 4.13 of GPN-AI warns about inputting confidential, suppressed, or privileged information into generally accessible AI tools. Once entered, that data may become available to others. Users may not know where it is stored or who will access it.
This applies to web development workflows. If a law firm provides client matter details, case summaries, or privileged information to an AI tool as part of generating website content, that data may be retained by the AI provider. Even in controlled environments, the Court notes that outputs used later for different purposes may breach obligations.
For firms using AI to draft case studies, testimonials, or practice area descriptions based on real matters, this is a serious consideration. The safest approach is to keep client information out of AI tools entirely and rely on human drafting for anything that draws on confidential material.
The bigger picture for your firm’s digital presence
The Federal Court is not opposed to AI. The practice note explicitly recognises that generative AI has the potential to increase efficiency, reduce legal costs, and enhance access to justice. The Court is holding a symposium in the coming months to discuss challenges and benefits further.
The message is not to avoid AI. The message is to use it responsibly, verify its outputs, and maintain accountability.
For law firms investing in their online presence, that translates to a clear standard: your website content should reflect the same rigour you bring to court filings. Not because a judge will read your practice area pages, but because your prospective clients will. And they deserve accurate, trustworthy information.
If your law firm needs a WordPress website built with that standard in mind, our team has 20 years of experience working with Sydney legal practices. View our PGG Legal case study to see what that looks like in practice, or contact us about WordPress support and maintenance for your existing site.
Frequently asked questions
What is the Federal Court’s GPN-AI practice note?
GPN-AI is a practice note issued by Chief Justice Mortimer on 16 April 2026. It sets out the Federal Court’s expectations for the use of generative AI in connection with court proceedings, including disclosure obligations and accountability requirements.
Does GPN-AI apply to law firm websites?
The practice note applies to documents filed with and proceedings before the Federal Court. It does not directly regulate website content. However, the principles of accuracy, accountability, and disclosure are equally relevant to any content a law firm publishes publicly.
Can law firms still use AI to create website content?
Yes. The practice note does not prohibit AI use. It requires that outputs are verified, accurate, and that the responsible person can account for how AI was used. The same standard should apply to website content.
What are the risks of publishing AI generated content on a law firm website?
Generative AI can produce fictitious case citations, incorrect legal principles, and misleading information. Publishing unverified AI content on a law firm website risks misleading potential clients and undermining professional credibility.
How can a law firm audit its existing website content for AI accuracy?
Review every practice area page, blog post, and case study. Verify all legal references, statutory citations, and factual claims. Confirm that no AI generated imagery is being presented without appropriate context. Establish a review process for all future content.
Photo by Andrea De Santis