FIELD NOTES / BUYER’S GUIDE

Legal AI tools in Australia compared: data, prices and court rules

Compare 13 legal AI tools by what they do, Australian content, published price and where your data goes, then check the court and regulator rules and a vendor checklist before a trial.

By Find AI Consultants · AI-assisted research and writing · Updated 24 October 2026

Checked 24 October 2026. We have not tested these products. Tool descriptions, prices and data claims are the vendors’ own and change often. This guide is general information, not legal advice.

Four kinds of legal AI tool.

AI inside your practice management system (for example LEAP, Smokeball, Clio, Actionstep). It works on matter data you already hold.
Research and drafting platforms built on legal content (for example Lexis+ with Protégé, CoCounsel and Westlaw, Clio Work, LawY, Habeas).
Large-firm and in-house platforms (for example Harvey, Legora, Josef).
Task tools for a single job, such as litigation chronologies, plus general assistants such as ChatGPT, Claude and Microsoft Copilot. See our Copilot guide for the general tools.

The right choice depends on whether you need research over Australian law, AI inside your matters, or document review, and on where the tool keeps and processes your data. In the 2025 Victorian Lawyer Census, 37% of responding lawyers said they used AI tools, and only 42% of respondents had workplace AI guidelines.

Tools compared.

Alphabetical, not a ranking or a complete market survey. “Not published” means we could not find a public price on the official page.

Vendor claims, checked 24 October 2026. Certification and hosting claims have not been independently verified.
Tool	Type	What the vendor says it does	Australian content	Published price	Data location and training (vendor claim)
Actionstep Intelligence ↗	Practice management AI	Time and revenue capture, bill narratives and plain-language questions about firm data. Describes itself as operational AI, not practice-of-law AI	None stated	Not published	Hosted on AWS (region not named). Says it does not use firm data to train AI models. AI features are opt-in
Clio Manage (AI features) ↗	Practice management AI	AI-drafted bills and client updates, documents to tasks and events, task prioritisation	Not applicable	“Starting at $39/user/month” for a plan without AI features; plans with AI by quote	Australian firms on Clio’s Australia server by default. Says data is never used for AI training
Clio Work ↗	Research and drafting	Document and recording analysis, summaries, timelines, submissions and research	Library includes Commonwealth, state and territory material	Per user, not published	Stored in Australia for Australian firms, but generating a response may involve temporary processing outside the region
CoCounsel and Westlaw Advantage Australia ↗	Research and drafting	Research, drafting, document review, timelines and research reports	Westlaw Australia content, authorised reports and The Laws of Australia	Not published	Says prompts and outputs are currently stored and processed in Australia, with no training on customer content
Habeas ↗	Research and drafting	Research agents over case law and legislation, drafting and document analysis	Publicly available Australian legal documents, with paragraph-level citations	Tiers named, amounts not shown	Says data is stored on Australian servers. Training policy not stated
Harvey ↗	Large-firm and in-house platform	Research, document analysis, contract review and workflow agents	None stated on the homepage	Not published	Has an Australian instance; a 2025 customer post describes all storage and processing in Australia
Josef ↗	In-house platform	Q&A grounded in your own policies and playbooks, contract automation and intake workflows	Not applicable	Not published	“Hosted in your region” (regions not named)
LawY ↗	Research and drafting	Research, drafting, document analysis and contract review, with optional verification by qualified lawyers	Australian law; verifiers are described as practising lawyers in your state	The homepage and pricing page show different figures; confirm with the vendor	Says zero data retention and no training on your information. Storage location not stated
LEAP ↗	Practice management AI plus research	Matter questions with sources, matter summaries and chronologies, drafting, and LawY research	Research answers verified by Australian lawyers via LawY	Not published; AI described as included in the subscription	Australian firms hosted in Sydney, but some AI features, including Matter AI, may transfer limited client data to the US for processing
Legora ↗	Large-firm platform	Review, research, drafting, tabular review and workflows	None stated on the homepage	Not published	Says no AI training on your data. Storage location not stated
Lexis+ with Protégé ↗	Research and drafting	Drafting, research, summaries, review tables and citation checking	Australian case law and legislation, Halsbury’s Laws of Australia and Practical Guidance	Not published (quote by firm size)	Says legal AI is hosted in Australia and not used to train public models
Mary Technology ↗	Litigation chronologies	Sorts and dates matter documents, flags gaps and proposes chronology entries linked to source	Not applicable	Charged per page processed; 100 free pages; amounts not shown	Says data is never used to train AI models. Hosting location not stated
Smokeball Archie AI ↗	Practice management AI	Drafts, reviews and answers inside the matter, with summaries linked to source	Jurisdiction-aware guidance via LawY	Plans from $59, $129 and $249 per user per month excluding GST; Archie is an add-on, price not published	Says zero data retention agreements and no sharing for training. Hosting region not stated on the pages read

Note on data: where a tool stores your data and where its AI processes a request can differ. LEAP and Clio Work both disclose that some AI processing may happen overseas. Ask about both, in writing.

What the courts and regulators require.

Three points come through in every source:

You are responsible for every citation and fact, whatever tool produced it.
Keep confidential, privileged, suppressed and subpoenaed material out of any tool that cannot guarantee it stays contained and is not used for training.
Affidavits, witness statements and expert reports carry extra restrictions or disclosure duties.

Summaries of official documents read on 24 October 2026. Read the full document before relying on it.
Body	Document	What it means for choosing a tool
Law Society of NSW, Legal Practice Board of WA and Victorian Legal Services Board + Commissioner	Joint statement (6 December 2024) ↗	No confidential information in public chatbots. Check commercial tools’ terms. You must be able to verify outputs yourself. Bill only for work done. Have a firm policy on approved tools
Law Society of NSW	Solicitor’s guide to responsible use of AI (January 2026) ↗	Review contracts for data ownership and how prompts are stored, limit access, test before use, and get client approval including any onshore hosting needs
Law Institute of Victoria	Ethical and responsible use of AI (August 2025) ↗	No confidential or privileged information in AI tools without client consent. Examine “closed system” claims carefully. Tell clients before use
Queensland Law Society	Guidance Statement No. 37 (May 2024) ↗	Assess where data is processed and stored, retention and training. If the terms do not address training, avoid the tool. Check your PI insurance
Supreme Court of NSW	Practice Note SC Gen 23 (in force 3 February 2025) ↗	No generative AI for the content of affidavits, witness statements or character references. Expert reports need leave. Citations must be verified. Dedicated legal research search tools are excluded; their drafting features are not
Supreme Court of Victoria	Practice Note SC Gen 25 (14 May 2026) ↗	Users are responsible for content. Check the contract or settings of any closed tool. Be ready to identify AI-produced parts
Federal Court of Australia	GPN-AI Practice Note (16 April 2026) ↗	Disclose when the Court requires, and where AI analyses information a witness relies on. Confirm authorities and evidence exist
Federal Circuit and Family Court	PD-AI Practice Direction (29 May 2026) ↗	Applies even if a product is not labelled AI. A paid or closed tool is not automatically reliable. Be able to say which tool was used and how output was checked
Supreme Court of Queensland	Practice Direction 5 of 2025 (September 2025) ↗	A named practitioner is responsible for submissions and must verify every reference
Supreme Court of WA	Generative AI guidelines (November 2025) ↗	Human verification by the person taking legal responsibility. No confidential, suppressed or privileged information in public tools
South Australian courts	Generative AI guidelines (from 1 January 2026) ↗	Read the guidelines before filing in SA courts

Tribunals and lower courts have their own protocols. The Law Society of NSW keeps a list of court protocols on AI ↗.

Questions to ask a vendor before a trial.

Where is our data stored, and where is it processed when the AI runs? Ask separately and get it in writing.
Is our data used to train any model, yours or a third party’s? What is retained, and for how long?
Can the tool handle suppressed, subpoenaed or discovery material under the court’s conditions? If not, keep that material out.
Does every answer link to the exact source, and can we check citations against an authoritative database?
Which Australian jurisdictions and materials does it cover, and how current are they?
Can we switch off chat history and web search, and control who sees which matters?
Can we show a court which tool was used and how the output was checked?
What does it cost per user excluding GST, is AI included or an add-on, and how will that show on client bills?
Which security certifications do you hold, and will you share the reports?
Will our PI insurer accept this use?
Have we told clients, updated engagement letters and recorded which tools are approved for which data?
Who supervises junior staff’s use, and who signs off filed documents?

Pair these questions with the demonstration checks on our legal services page, which use made-up documents so you can test a tool without client data.

Who can help choose or set up a tool.

These listings have published legal-sector AI work. Inclusion is not an endorsement, and we have not verified outcomes.

Blue Husky, part of Hicksons, describes AI solutions and workflow automation for in-house legal teams.
Cartland AI configures and deploys AI platforms in existing professional systems and trains lawyers and staff, for law- and tax-related work.
Portable published the amica case study for the Legal Services Commission of SA, a public legal service product.

For advice on vendor contracts and AI law, some law firms list AI regulation and technology advice, for example Daimon Legal, Maddocks and Pongan Legal. See every provider that lists legal services.

Common questions.

What is the best legal AI tool in Australia?

There is no single answer. It depends on whether you need research over Australian law, AI inside your practice management system or document review, and where the tool keeps your data. We have not tested them; use the checklist and a trial with made-up documents.

Can lawyers use ChatGPT in Australia?

Yes, within professional duties. The regulators’ joint statement says not to put confidential client information into public chatbots, and you must verify every output.

Do I have to tell the court I used AI?

It depends on the court. NSW requires affidavits to state that generative AI was not used for their content. The Federal Court requires disclosure when directed and in some evidence situations. Other courts expect you to be able to explain your use if asked.

Is legal research software covered by the NSW practice note?

Dedicated legal research software that only searches legal material is excluded. Drafting and summarising features in the same products are covered.

How much does legal AI cost in Australia?

Most vendors do not publish prices. Smokeball publishes plan prices from $59 per user per month excluding GST, with its AI as a separate add-on. Ask every vendor for a written quote per user.

Is there a free legal AI for the public?

Members of the public should start with Legal Aid in their state and court self-help pages. General AI tools are not legal advice.

Sources and review scope

Find AI Consultants prepared this AI-assisted guide from the vendor and official pages below, checked on 24 October 2026. It is not legal advice. Ordinary links do not imply an affiliate relationship.

Find relevant consultants ↗