A Practice Note issued by the NSW Supreme Court provides one perspective on the use of generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) in the preparation of expert reports. While not directed at any single profession, the guidance has clear and practical implications for valuers acting as expert witnesses in court and tribunal proceedings.
At its core, the NSW Supreme Court Practice Note reinforces a long-standing principle of expert evidence, this being that an expert report must reflect the expert’s own opinion and reasoning process. The Court is explicit that, subject to limited exceptions, Gen AI must not be used to draft or prepare the content of an expert report, or any part of it, without prior leave of the Court. This position reflects judicial concern about transparency, authorship, and the reliability of reasoning where AI tools are involved.
Where an expert seeks leave to use Gen AI, the threshold is deliberately high. Any application must identify the precise purpose for which Gen AI will be used, the specific program and version, whether it is open or closed source, the benefits expected to be derived, and any documents proposed to be submitted to the system. This is a clear signal that casual or convenience-based use of Gen AI will not be acceptable in the context of expert evidence.
If leave is granted, the disclosure obligations are extensive. The expert must state in the report which parts relied on Gen AI, identify the program and version used, and keep detailed records of prompts, settings, and variables. The Auctioneers and Valuers Association of Australia (AVAA) notes that this requirement highlights challenges between managing technology and a professional’s own judgement.
“This guidance is a timely reminder that professionalism demands judgement, transparency and restraint when technology intersects with expert evidence court,” said Troy Williams, AVAA Chief Executive.
To meet the requirements of the practice note, if the expert is bound by any professional code or principles regulating the use of Gen AI, those must be identified and annexed to the report. These requirements go well beyond current disclosure practices in valuation and will require careful record-keeping and governance.
A copy of the NSW Supreme Court Practice note can be downloaded via the link below.
Importantly for valuers, the Practice Note recognises that not all uses of Gen AI are equal. Examples provided by the Court include potential benefits, including analysing large datasets, interrogating sound, graphic or video material, or conducting statistical analysis. This suggests that analytical or assistive uses of AI may be acceptable, provided they do not displace the valuer’s professional judgement or reasoning.
For valuers, the implications are clear. Gen AI cannot be used as a drafting shortcut for opinions, reasoning, or conclusions in matters before the Court. Any use must be deliberate, defensible, and capable of being explained in detail to the Court. Valuers acting as experts should also expect legal practitioners to expressly draw these requirements to their attention when instructions are issued.
More broadly, the Practice Note reflects a judicial expectation that experts will approach Gen AI cautiously, ethically, and transparently. For valuers, this aligns with core professional obligations of independence, competence, and accountability, and reinforces that expert evidence remains a human responsibility, even in an AI-enabled world.
Interested In Finding Out More?
For further information on AVAA’s monitoring of the use of AI in legal frameworks, please send an email to policy.advocacy@avaa.com.au or telephone 1300 928 165. You can also stay up to date by following AVAA on LinkedIn, X/Twitter and Facebook.
