AI Disclosure Practices
The Supreme Court's AI Committee has not yet notified rules governing the use of AI in legal drafting. The practices below are this tool's own voluntary, best-practice self-disclosure — not statutory compliance — and are designed to be updated once official rules exist.
16
Practices In Place
1
Your Responsibility
AI Language Model
Claude (claude-sonnet-4-6) by Anthropic PBC, USA
Embedding Model
all-MiniLM-L6-v2 (sentence-transformers) — local/on-premise
Knowledge Base
SC Rules 2013 + Practice Manual 2017 + filed SLPs (public domain)
API Type
External cloud API — Anthropic's servers
Training on client data
NO — uploaded documents used for in-context inference ONLY
Output type
Advisory draft — requires mandatory human review
Disclosed via the dedicated AI Disclosure Note (Annexure I) and Transparency Report that accompany every package — not stamped onto the filed document itself, so nothing needs manual removal before filing
Anti-hallucination rules enforced in all AI prompts; uncertain fields highlighted in yellow (<<<HIGHLIGHT>>>)
10-item HITL checklist mandatory before output package is unlocked for download
AI Transparency Report auto-generated with every job listing model, KB sources, token counts, highlights
Advocate certifies professional responsibility in HITL review; AI output is advisory only
Advisory nature disclosed in the AI Disclosure Note and Transparency Report; HITL review enforces verification before download
Data Processing Notice shown before upload; 30-day auto-deletion of uploaded files
Tool used exclusively for SLP drafting assistance
HITL workflow mandatory for all SLP outputs; citations must be independently verified
Knowledge base built on SC Rules 2013, Practice Manual 2017 (public domain official publications)
Uploaded documents used for in-context inference only; not stored or used for model training
Tool is purely assistive; no outcome prediction, risk scoring, or adjudicatory function
AI system (Claude, Anthropic) fully disclosed; Transparency Report provides full explainability
Auto-generated with every output package; advocate may sign and file it alongside the SLP
Transparency Report provides a complete audit trail; Annexure I provides a Court-facing note
Before using AI-assisted output in court proceedings, confirm acceptability with your Bar / the relevant Court, since no Supreme Court AI Committee rules on AI-assisted drafting have been notified yet
Uploaded documents auto-deleted after 30 days by default; data minimisation applied
No Supreme Court AI Committee rules on the use of AI in legal drafting have been notified as of today. Until such rules exist, it is the Advocate-on-Record's responsibility to independently confirm — with their Bar, the relevant Court, or any Appropriate Authority that may apply — whether any disclosure or approval is expected before using an AI-assisted document in a filing.
This tool generates an AI Disclosure Note (Annexure I) with every output package as a voluntary aid — the advocate may choose to sign and file it alongside the SLP as a matter of professional transparency. It is not a document prescribed by any notified regulation.
The AI Transparency Report (included in every output package) documents the AI system used, the knowledge sources retrieved, and every highlighted field, so that the advocate has a full record of the AI's role in preparing the draft.