By Michael Paterson, Chair, Technology & Law Committee
Like many practitioners, I receive the High Court’s judgment notifications by email.
They are useful, but only to a point. The email tells you that new decisions have been handed down and lists the case names. If you want to know whether any of them are relevant to your practice, you’re off to the High Court website to open each judgment, read the catchwords and decide whether it’s worth investigating further.
This week I tried a different approach.
Instead of clicking through to the High Court website, I copied the email into Microsoft Copilot and asked a simple question: “Please provide the catchwords for the cases in this message.”
Within seconds, Copilot reproduced the catchwords for all four decisions, organised by case.
Two of the matters immediately caught my attention, so I asked a follow-up question: “Please provide a forensic takeaway for cases 2 and 4.” I then asked for the outcomes before drilling into the decision that interested me most—ASIC v Web3 Ventures.
My prompts became progressively more specific:
- “Please tell me more in relation to Web3.”
- “In what respect was Web3 successful?”
- “Please summarise the Federal Court case from which the appeal arose.”
The last response was particularly impressive. Rather than simply summarising the Full Federal Court decision I had asked about, Copilot recognised that understanding the High Court appeal required broader context. It summarised both the original Federal Court decision and the Full Court appeal, explaining that the appeal “only really makes sense when both are read together.”
Within a matter of minutes, I had developed a solid working understanding of the litigation, the High Court’s reasoning and the practical implications of the decision.
Could I have done the same research manually? Absolutely. But it would have taken considerably longer.
That is, perhaps, the real lesson.
Used thoughtfully, AI is becoming an exceptionally effective tool for triaging information. It helps lawyers decide where to spend their attention, rather than replacing the careful legal analysis that follows.
Of course, the usual cautions apply. AI-generated summaries should never be accepted uncritically. Important authorities should always be verified against the original judgment, particularly where advice, advocacy or precedent is involved.
But for the everyday challenge of keeping across a constant stream of new decisions, AI is proving to be a remarkably capable research assistant. Ironically, writing this article took me longer than understanding the judgment itself—although I had a little help from AI with that too.
If you haven’t yet experimented with using AI to keep abreast of new case law, it might be time. You may find it becomes one of the most valuable additions to your legal toolkit.
