Generative AI for Lawyers

Generative AI is already changing how New Zealand law firms research, draft and review. Used well, it saves time on routine work. Used carelessly, it can put client confidentiality, privilege and professional obligations at risk. KiwiGen.AI helps firms adopt generative AI safely, with the governance and controls that legal practice demands.

The Law Society’s guidance sets out how generative AI intersects with lawyers’ existing duties — covering quality assurance, privacy, confidentiality and privilege, intellectual property, and the professional and ethical obligations in the Rules of Conduct and Client Care. Its central message is that using AI does not reduce a lawyer’s professional responsibilities.

AI in legal practice

Generative AI can support research, drafting, document review, contract analysis and summarisation. But lawyers remain accountable for the result. AI can produce inaccurate facts, invented authorities and misleading conclusions, so AI-assisted work – particularly advice, contracts, court documents and research – must be independently verified, and staff using it must be properly supervised. An incorrect result cannot be excused simply because it came from an AI tool.

The most immediate risk for many firms is the information entered into an AI system. Prompts can contain client names, privileged communications, litigation strategy and commercially sensitive documents. Firms should understand whether a provider retains, reuses or transfers data overseas, use anonymised or fictional information for testing, and remember that removing a client’s name may not be enough if the surrounding facts still identify the person or matter.

A blanket ban tends to push staff toward unapproved, unsupervised use. Clear governance is more effective – covering approved and prohibited uses, rules for entering client information, vendor security and privacy assessments, human-review requirements, staff training and incident reporting. Good governance lets firms benefit from AI without compromising professional duties or client trust.

Using AI in court and tribunal work

The Courts of New Zealand has issued separate generative AI guidance for lawyers, judicial officers and non-lawyers. For lawyers, existing duties apply regardless of whether work was drafted or researched using AI. Lawyers remain responsible for every document, citation and factual statement submitted to a court or tribunal, and AI-generated material must be checked by an appropriately qualified person before it is relied upon. Generative AI is known to invent cases, citations and legislation, apply overseas law, and confidently present incorrect information as accurate.

Confidential, privileged or suppressed information generally should not be entered into public AI tools. Using AI does not usually need to be disclosed, but a court or tribunal may ask – so firms should be able to explain what tool was used, what task it performed, what information was entered, how confidentiality was protected and how the output was independently verified.

Practical steps for your firm

Whether AI is used for day-to-day practice or court work, the same fundamentals apply:

  1. Set clear rules – identify approved tools, permitted tasks and information that must never be entered.
  2. Verify from original sources – check every case, citation, quotation, legislative reference and factual statement against an authoritative source.
  3. Protect sensitive information – address privilege, confidentiality, suppression and privacy in your AI policy.
  4. Assess your vendors – for security, privacy, data retention and overseas processing.
  5. Train and supervise staff – fluent AI-generated text is not evidence of accuracy.

Related resources:

Talk to us about generative AI in your firm →

This page provides general information about AI governance and legal practice. It is not legal advice and does not replace the applicable legislation, professional rules, court directions or the guidance referenced above.

Privacy

Contact

LinkedIn