Courts, parliaments, and the By Lawyers production team are well and truly into the swing of the new year, with important practice note changes, legislative amendments, and helpful new AI prompts taking our focus over the past month.

Our regular review work continues in the background, with updates and enhancements to the Sale and Purchase of Business guides in each state being progressively rolled out.

See below for more details:

AI prompts for Companies, Trusts, Partnerships, and Joint Ventures – All states

By Lawyers has added new AI prompts to the Companies, Trusts, Partnerships, and Joint Ventures matter plans to help practitioners quickly and confidently check that drafted documents reflect a client’s instructions.

The new prompts are:

• Prompt comparing instructions with draft shareholders agreement; 

• Prompt comparing instructions with draft partnership agreement;

• Prompt comparing instructions with draft trust deed; and

• Prompt comparing instructions with draft joint venture agreement.

These AI prompts act as an additional layer of review, assisting lawyers to identify inconsistencies, omissions, or unintended departures from client instructions. In doing so, they strengthen risk management processes while saving time in complex commercial matters.

The prompts are available within the relevant By Lawyers matter plans and are designed to work seamlessly with LEAP’s Matter AI. This integration allows practitioners to harness AI functionality directly within their LEAP matter, alongside By Lawyers trusted guides and precedents.

By incorporating these AI prompts into established matter plans, By Lawyers continues to provide best practice processes that help firms work efficiently and reduce risk. Our sequential matter plans guide practitioners logically from instruction to completion, ensuring that no critical step is missed. The addition of AI-powered comparison tools further enhances accuracy and confidence.

These new AI prompts are now available in our Companies, Trusts, Partnerships, and Joint Ventures publications.

Restrictions on the use of generative AI in the Local Court - NSW

A new Local Court practice note applies the restrictions on the use of generative AI that already exist in the Supreme and District Courts to all Local Court proceedings. 

Local Court Practice Note: Generative Artificial Intelligence adopted the Supreme Court’s Practice Note SC GEN 23 Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence with effect from 12 January 2026.

The key provisions of the practice note are:

• Legal practitioners are expected to be aware of the limits, risks, and shortcomings of any particular generative AI program they use, including the scope for hallucinations.

• It is impermissible, without the leave of the court, to enter into any generative AI program any information to which the implied undertaking, also called the Harman undertaking, applies, such as another party's affidavits or material produced under subpoena, unless the legal practitioner or person with responsibility for the file is satisfied that the information will remain confidential, will only be used in connection with the proceedings, and will not be used to train the AI program.

• AI must not be used in generating the content of affidavits, witness statements, or other material intended to reflect a deponent or witness’ evidence or opinion, or any other material tendered in evidence or used in cross-examination.

• If generative AI has been used in the preparation of written submissions, summaries, or arguments, the author must verify in the document that all citations, legal and academic authority, and case law and legislative references exist, are accurate, and are relevant to the proceedings.

• Affidavits, witness statements, and other material that is intended to reflect the deponent or witness’ evidence or opinion must contain a statement that AI was not used in generating their content.

• Generative AI must not be used to draft or prepare the content of an expert report, without the prior leave of the court, and parties must bring this requirement to the expert's attention.

• There is a procedure for parties to seek leave if an expert proposes to use generative AI for their report. Disclosure and record-keeping obligations are imposed on an expert if leave is granted and AI is used for their report.

The Judicial Guidelines on the use of generative AI already apply to all courts in New South Wales.

The commentary and precedents in By Lawyers Local Court Civil (NSW), Local Court Criminal (NSW), Traffic Offences (NSW) and Apprehended Violence Orders (NSW) guides have been updated in line with the new practice direction. This includes guidance and hyperlinks in the commentaries, and precedents such as letters instructing expert witnesses and clauses for affidavits.

The Implied undertaking section in By Lawyers 101 Subpoena Answers, available in the Reference Materials folder on all litigation matter plans, has also been updated. New UCPR Forms 40 and 163 that contain the required disclosure notice that generative AI was not used are also being added to the relevant matter plans.

Uniform defamation law amendments - QLD

Amendments to the uniform defamation law have effect in Queensland.

The Defamation and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2025 (QLD) introduced reforms agreed nationally in 2024 that have already commenced in other jurisdictions, except WA.

The amendments include:

Exemption from liability in defamation as publishers for digital intermediaries

The legislation now provides an exemption from liability in defamation for digital intermediaries providing caching, conduit, or storage services, provided the intermediary did not:

1. initiate the steps required to publish the matter;

2. select any of the recipients of the matter;

3. encourage the poster of the defamatory material to publish the matter;

4. edit the content of the matter whether before or after it was published; or

5. promote the matter whether before or after it was published.

The section applies regardless of whether the digital intermediary knew or ought reasonably to have known the digital material was defamatory.

Exemption from liability under defamation law for search engine providers

Like digital intermediaries, search engine providers are not liable for defamatory material comprising search results if the provider’s role is limited to providing an automated process for the search engine user to generate search results or hyperlinks, provided the search results or hyperlinks are not promoted or prioritised by the search engine provider receiving a payment or another benefit by or on behalf of a third party.

The provision applies regardless of whether the search engine provider knew or ought reasonably to have known the digital matter was defamatory.

Early determination of digital intermediary exemptions

The court must determine whether a defendant has a digital intermediary exemption and whether the exemption is established as soon as practicable before the trial commences unless there are good reasons to postpone the determination. In doing so, the court can make any orders it considers appropriate, including dismissing the proceedings, if satisfied the digital intermediary exemption is established.

Content of offer to make amends

The digital intermediary exemptions from liability as publishers include changes to offers to make amends, in that an offer in the case of digital matter may include an offer to prevent access to the defamatory material, instead of, or in addition to, other offers to make amends.

Orders for preliminary discovery in defamation cases about posters of digital matter

Defamation litigants can take advantage of pre-litigation or preliminary discovery to assist in identifying the poster of defamatory material or the physical or digital address of the poster, to allow concerns notices and court proceedings to be served.

Defence for publications involving digital intermediaries

This new defence is available if a digital intermediary has provided an accessible complaints mechanism for an aggrieved person to use and they use it to make a complaint.

The digital intermediary must have taken reasonable steps to prevent access to the defamatory material, either before the complaint was received, or within 7 days of the complaint.

The complaints mechanism must be an easily accessible address, location or other mechanism available for the plaintiff to use to complain to the defendant about the publication of the digital matter concerned.

Defence available to content moderators

The defence of digital intermediary is available to defendants who moderate content by taking steps to detect or identify and remove, block, disable, or otherwise prevent access to content that may be defamatory, or that breaches the terms or conditions of the online service.

Orders against non-party digital intermediaries

If a plaintiff secures judgment or an injunction against a defendant in proceedings, the court may order a non-party digital intermediary to take access prevention steps, or other steps the court considers necessary to prevent or limit the continued publication or re-publication of the matter complained of.

Such an order may require access prevention steps to be taken in relation to all or only some of the users of an online service.

The new section does not limit other powers of the court to grant injunctions or make other orders for access prevention.

Service of notices and other documents

The amendments expand the existing options for serving notices and documents to include messaging or other electronic communication to an electronic address or location indicated by the recipient.

Extension of the defence of absolute privilege under uniform defamation law

Concerns were raised in the Stage 2 review of the uniform defamation law about liability in defamation for someone reporting a person to the police for suspected wrongdoing, and then being sued by that person in defamation if the police dismiss the complaint for lack of evidence or absence of culpability on the part of the person reported.

These concerns were addressed by amending the absolute defence provisions of the uniform defamation law to provide that defamatory matter published to a police officer while the officer is acting in an official capacity is covered by the defence of absolute privilege.

Publication updates

The By Lawyers Defamation and Protecting Reputation publication has been updated accordingly.

Changes to intervention orders - VIC

The first tranche of amendments under the Justice Legislation Amendment (Family Violence, Stalking and Other Matters) Act 2026 (VIC) commenced on 11 February 2026. 

These initial changes include:

• amending the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 to clarify against whom the court can make an interim order on its own motion in a bail matter or criminal proceeding; and
• amending the Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010 to provide for a court to make an interim order on its own motion in a bail matter or criminal proceeding.

The By Lawyers Intervention Orders (VIC) guide has been updated to include practical guidance on navigating these changes.

The remaining provisions of the amending Act commence in 2 further tranches on 26 April 2026 and 10 November 2026 unless proclaimed earlier. By Lawyers will monitor the legislation and further update our guides in line with these amendments when they commence.

The remaining provisions include:

1. Changes to the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 covering:

• how intervention orders and other documents are served;

• the duration of final orders;

• consideration of misidentification, age and cognitive impairment when making family violence intervention orders and, for misidentification, when issuing family violence safety notices;

• a ban on making a family violence intervention against a child under 12 ;

• legal representation in contested family violence intervention order applications; 

• removal of limits on making family violence intervention orders where family violence occurred outside Victoria;

• clearer guidance on what behaviours constitute family violence;

• conditions that can be included in intervention orders and safety notices, including conditions about animals; and

• ongoing protection where a family violence intervention order is made to protect a child.

2. Amendment of the Crimes Act 1958 concerning:

• the offence of stalking; and

• alternative jury verdicts for certain sexual offences.

3. Amendment of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 concerning:

• the offence of stalking; and

• the role and functions of intermediaries.

4. Amendment of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958 notice requirements for evidence of confidential communications and protected health information.

5. Amendment of the Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010 to define stalking under that Act.

Revised Common Law practice note in the County Court - VIC

The County Court of Victoria has issued a revised Common Law Division Practice Note, with effect from 9 February 2026.

The practice note provides procedural guidance for proceedings in the Common Law Division.

Key changes from the previous version published in July 2025 include:

• Introduction

• Information about the structure of the Common Law Division has been moved to the County Court website.

• Interlocutory applications

• The types of disputes appropriate to be listed for a directions hearing have been clarified.

• New guidance has been added on the material to be provided by parties before a directions hearing, and on applications to vacate or adjourn interlocutory applications.

• Referral of medical questions to a medical panel in serious injury applications

• The process has been changed to avoid multiple directions hearings, with most referrals now dealt with on the papers via administrative mention listings.

• The status of hearing dates pending return of the Medical Panel Opinion has been clarified.

• WorkCover List practices

• Administrative mentions for case management have been introduced.

• The practice for referral of medical questions to a medical panel has been amended to aligned with the updated practice in the Serious Injury List.

• Medical List

• The practice for interlocutory disputes has been amended to align with the General List.

• Post mediation directions hearings have been replaced by post mediation administrative mentions.

• Institutional Liability List

• The practice for interlocutory disputes has been amended to align with the General List practice.

• Appeals and post sentence application: Intervention Order appeals

• The pre-determination process has been amended so that all documentation and applications are provided on the papers, without a final directions hearing.

• Determination of appeals may now be heard in person or on the papers, at the discretion of the allocated judge.

The Common Law Division standard orders booklet has also been updated. 

Links and references to the Common Law Division Practice Note and the standard orders booklet in the matter plans and commentary in the By Lawyers County Court Civil (VIC) – Acting for the Plaintiff and Acting for the Defendant guides have been updated accordingly.

New AI Prompts - All states

Estate Administration

Three new AI prompts have been to the Probate and Letters of Administration guides in all states:

• Prompt for initial summary of estate assets and liabilities
• Prompt for letter to executor summarising estate responsibilities and action to be taken
• Prompt for statement of assets, liabilities and distribution

Mortgages

These 2 new AI prompts in the Mortgages guides for all states help practitioners draft and advise on loan documentation

• Prompt for comparing instructions with draft loan agreement
• Prompt for summary of loan terms

Leases

The following AI prompts have been added to By Lawyers Leases publications in Victoria and Queensland:

• Prompt for letter to client with advice on retail lease;
• Prompt for letter to client with advice on commercial and industrial lease
• Prompt for letter to client with advice on rural lease

Purchase of business

Two new AI prompts have been added to the Purchase of business guides in all states: 

• Prompt for letter to client with summary of contract for sale of business
• Prompt comparing instructions with draft sale of business agreement

By Lawyers prompts are developed for use with LEAP’s Matter AI and have not been tested or validated with any other software or AI platforms.

Updates to By Lawyers mortgages publications

By Lawyers Mortgages guides have been reviewed and enhanced by our in-house team, in consultation with our authors in each state.

Key enhancements include:

• an updated and more concise Overview and Scope of the publication;
• a Summary of the process, setting out the usual steps when acting for both a private lender/mortgagor and a private borrower/mortgagee;
• updated links and references to relevant legislation in each jurisdiction;
• detailed tips for Taking instructions in mortgage matters;
• a new Initial considerations section discussing practical preliminary issues such as due diligence, valuations, consents, and second or subsequent mortgages;
• detailed guidance on the Creation and registration of a mortgage, including the National Mortgage Form and commentary on relevant aspects of electronic conveyancing practice, with links to land registries and resources;
• more detailed guidance on Certificates of independent advice;
• a consolidated section on Discharge, transfer, assignment, and variation of mortgages, with additional commentary and links to land registries and resources;
• more detailed commentary on Default, including the mortgagee’s power of sale, notice and service requirements, and obtaining possession.

The Matter Plans in each state include the By Lawyers precedent Mortgage linked loan agreement and a Standard terms document – Registered memorandum, registered in each state.

New Rules for the use of Gen AI in the Personal Injury Commission - NSW

New rules

Under the Personal Injury Commission (Amendment No 4) Rule 2025, which amended the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 with effect from 1 January 2026, the use of generative AI is subject to the provisions of 2 new rules.

Rule 33A provides that generative AI must not be used for the content of a written statement of evidence on which a party proposes to rely. This extends to using AI to alter, embellish, strengthen, dilute, or rephrase a person’s evidence. 

Each written statement must include a statement that generative AI was not used to generate its content.

Further, generative AI must not be used for the content of an annexure or exhibit to a written statement, unless the annexure or exhibit states that generative AI was used.

Rule 33B requires that an expert’s report must contain a statement that either:

• generative AI was not used to generate its content, or
• generative AI was used, and the use complied with any procedural direction on its use.

If AI was used, the report must identify the parts of the report for which it was used, the name and version of the AI program used, the date of use, and any prompts, script, or data provided to it, which must be attached to the report.

Publication updates

The By Lawyers Workers Compensation (NSW) and Motor Vehicle Accident (NSW) - Accidents from 1 December 2017 guides have been updated to reflect these changes.

The updates include:

• amendments to each Full Commentary;
• amendments to the precedent letters to medical and other experts;

a new Enclosure setting out Rule 33B in full, for easy inclusion when briefing an expert witness. 

Amendments to uniform defamation law - SA

Amendments to the uniform defamation law are in effect in South Australia from 15 December 2025.

The Defamation (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 2025 (SA) introduced reforms agreed nationally in 2024 that have already commenced in the other jurisdictions except Queensland and WA.

These amendments include:

Exemption from liability in defamation as publishers for digital intermediaries

There in now an exemption from liability in defamation for digital intermediaries providing caching, conduit, or storage services, provided the intermediary did not:

1. initiate the steps required to publish the matter;
2. select any of the recipients of the matter;
3. encourage the poster of the defamatory material to publish the matter;
4. edit the content of the matter whether before or after it was published; or
5. promote the matter whether before or after it was published.

This applies regardless of whether the digital intermediary knew or ought reasonably to have known the digital material was defamatory.

Exemption from liability under defamation law for search engine providers

Like digital intermediaries, search engine providers are not liable for defamatory material comprising search results if the provider’s role is limited to providing an automated process for the search engine user to generate search results or hyperlinks, provided the search results or hyperlinks are not promoted or prioritised by the search engine provider receiving a payment or another benefit by or on behalf of a third party.

The provision applies regardless of whether the search engine provider knew or ought reasonably to have known the digital matter was defamatory.

Early determination of digital intermediary exemptions

The court must determine whether a defendant has a digital intermediary exemption and whether the exemption is established as soon as practicable before the trial commences unless there are good reasons to postpone the determination. In doing so, the court can make any orders it considers appropriate, including dismissing the proceedings, if satisfied the digital intermediary exemption is established.

Content of offer to make amends

The digital intermediary exemptions from liability as publishers include changes to offers to make amends, in that an offer in the case of digital matter may include an offer to prevent access to the defamatory material, instead of, or in addition to, other offers to make amends.

Orders for preliminary discovery in defamation cases about posters of digital matter

Defamation litigants can take advantage of pre-litigation or preliminary discovery to assist in identifying the poster of defamatory material or the physical or digital address of the poster, to allow concerns notices and court proceedings to be served.

Defence for publications involving digital intermediaries

This new defence is available if a digital intermediary has provided an accessible complaints mechanism for an aggrieved person to use and they use it to make a complaint.

The digital intermediary must have taken reasonable steps to prevent access to the defamatory material, either before the complaint was received, or within 7 days of the complaint.

The complaints mechanism must be an easily accessible address, location or other mechanism available for the plaintiff to use to complain to the defendant about the publication of the digital matter concerned.

Defence available to content moderators

The defence of digital intermediary is available to defendants who moderate content by taking steps to detect or identify and remove, block, disable, or otherwise prevent access to content that may be defamatory, or that breaches the terms or conditions of the online service.

Orders against non-party digital intermediaries

If a plaintiff secures judgment or an injunction against a defendant in proceedings, the court may order a non-party digital intermediary to take access prevention steps, or other steps the court considers necessary to prevent or limit the continued publication or re-publication of the matter complained of.

Such an order may require access prevention steps to be taken in relation to all or only some of the users of an online service.

The new section does not limit other powers of the court to grant injunctions or make other orders for access prevention.

Service of notices and other documents

The amendments expand the existing options for serving notices and documents to include messaging or other electronic communication to an electronic address or location indicated by the recipient.

Extension of the defence of absolute privilege under uniform defamation law

Concerns were raised in the Stage 2 review of the uniform defamation law about liability in defamation for someone reporting a person to the police for suspected wrongdoing, and then being sued by that person in defamation if the police dismiss the complaint for lack of evidence or absence of culpability on the part of the person reported.

These concerns were addressed by amending the absolute defence provisions of the uniform defamation law to provide that defamatory matter published to a police officer while the officer is acting in an official capacity is covered by the defence of absolute privilege.

Publication updates

The By Lawyers Defamation and Protecting Reputation publication has been updated accordingly.

Family Violence Victims can Requalify for First Home Buyer Benefits - VIC

Victims of family violence can requalify for first home buyer benefits for another purchase in Victoria, even if they have:

• previously received a first home owner grant or first home buyer duty exemption or concession;
• owned a home previously.

Variations and waivers are also available for those who are unable to meet the 12-month residency requirement for benefits.

The By Lawyers Purchase of Real Property (VIC) commentary has been updated to include guidance on acting for purchasers who have been affected by family violence. 

1001 Conveyancing Answers Updated - VIC

Some notable recent cases have been added to 1001 Conveyancing Answers (VIC). This comprehensive reference work assists property lawyers and conveyancers with more detailed aspects of the conveyancing process and to solve problems for their clients.

These enhancements are part of a review of the publication by our author, Russell Cocks.

New cases added to the publication include:

• Nota & Anor v Karlovy Group Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] VCC 1132, which allowed damages for loss of opportunity in respect of the unpaid purchase price;
• Sumner v Nobes (Building and Property) [2025] VCAT 96 and Fall-Armytage v Victorian Managed Insurance Authority [2025] VCC 709 for building contract disputes decided by VCAT;
• Elliot v Elly Property Wright Residential Pty Ltd [2024] ACTSC 192 on a purchaser’s caveatable interest in a subdivided property; and
• Nasseri v Wellington Builders Pty Ltd & Ors [2024] VSC 200, which held that a reference to a unit trust in a contract of sale is a reference to the trustee of the unit trust.

1001 Conveyancing Answers (VIC) is available in all By Lawyers conveyancing and property publications in Victoria.

• New requirements for filing family law consent orders in the FCFCOA - FED

A Word version of proposed consent orders for family law matters in Division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia must now be lodged with an application for consent orders.

From 31 October 2025 the following documents are required when filing an Application for Consent Orders on the Commonwealth Courts Portal:

• The Proposed orders signed by all parties on each page in PDF format;
• The Proposed orders in an unsigned Word document (.docx) version;
• The Application for consent orders form; and
• Any other documents required having regard to the orders sought.

Practitioners must confirm by checking a box in the form that the text contained within the Word document is identical to the text in the signed PDF submitted with the application.

The commentary on Consent orders has been updated in the By Lawyers Family Law – Property Settlement and Family Law – Children guides.

• Federal Court rejects annualised reconciliation for salaried employees - FED

In Fair Work Ombudsman v Woolworths Group Limited; Fair Work Ombudsman v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd; Baker v Woolworths Group Limited; Pabalan v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1092, the Federal Court ruled that employers cannot use overpayments in one pay period to offset underpayments in another when paying annualised or all-in salaries under modern awards.

The decision rejected the long-standing practice of annualised reconciliation for salaried employees, in which excess payments in quiet weeks were used to cover shortfalls in busier ones.

The court said it is not sufficient that an employee is better off overall by their annualised salary compared to the award entitlements. Each pay period must meet all award entitlements – ordinary hours, overtime, allowances, penalties, and loadings – within that period.

The court emphasised that, under s 557C of the Fair Work Act 2009, the employer bears the full evidentiary burden if records of an employee's hours worked, breaks, or allowances are missing or incomplete. Reliance on a payroll system alone is not sufficient if it does not capture the actual hours worked.

Publication updates

A case summary and link have been added to 101 Employment Law Answers reference manual. The By Lawyers Employment Law (FED) guide has been updated in line with the decision, including the By Lawyers Standard Individual Employment Agreement precedent.

• AML/CTF changes impact law firms from March 2026 - FED

Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing (AML/CTF)

Overview of the changes

On 31 March 2026, law firms providing designated services will become subject to AML/CTF regulation.

By 1 July 2026, regulated law firms must:

• have an AML/CTF program;
• have an AML/CTF compliance officer;
• train staff on their program, internal processes, and ML/TF risks; and
• be ready to comply with the Act's requirements and report suspicious matters.

Key aspects of compliance include client identification and record-keeping, which law firms already systematise as part of their existing procedures. Integrating those procedures into an AML/CTF plan means law firms can ease the burden of compliance.

For LEAP users, LEAP's partner InfoTrack is leading the development of a complete AML/CTF Compliance Centre designed specifically for the Australian regime. This solution will integrate seamlessly into LEAP, ensuring that compliance becomes a natural part of the firm's existing workflow.

Legislation

The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Act 2024 (Cth) (the amending Act) expands the categories of reporting entities under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (the Act) to include:

• real estate professionals; 
• dealers in precious metals and precious stones; and 
• professional service providers, including lawyers, conveyancers, accountants, and trust and company service providers. 

These new participants are referred to as tranche 2 entities.

The main provisions of the amending Act commence on 31 March 2026.

The new Anti Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Rules 2025 (the Rules) also commence on 31 March 2026.

AUSTRAC regulation

Tranche 2 entities must enrol as reporting entities with the regulator, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) by 1 July 2026.

Enrolment opens 31 March 2026.

AUSTRAC has a dual role as Australia’s AML/CTF regulator and financial intelligence unit. Its mandate is to disrupt money laundering, terrorism financing, and other serious crimes.

AUSTRAC ensures regulated businesses comply with their obligations under the Act, including the obligation to have systems and controls that manage ML/TF risks.

Designated services

Only law firms providing designated services are regulated.

Designated services include:

• assisting clients to buy, sell, or transfer real estate;
• assisting clients to create, buy, sell, transfer, or restructure a legal arrangement;
• receiving, holding, controlling, or managing client funds or property;
• appointing a person, or acting as, a director or secretary of a company, power of attorney for a legal arrangement or body corporate, partner in a partnership, trustee of an express trust or any equivalent position;
• appointing a person, or acting as, a nominee shareholder of a legal arrangement or body corporate;
• providing a registered office address or principal place of business for a legal arrangement or body corporate;
• handling a person’s money, accounts, securities, virtual assets or other property to help a person plan or execute a transaction.

A legal arrangement includes an express trust, partnership, joint venture, unincorporated association, or other legal arrangement.

Law firms can determine if they are a tranche 2 entity by using AUSTRAC's online tool: Check if you’ll be regulated.

What regulated law firms need to do before 31 March 2026

If regulated, firms need to start preparing to implement an AML/CTF program by:

• conducting a risk assessment;
• thinking about how to monitor transactions;
• preparing policies;
• subscribing to receive updates from AUSTRAC; and
• being ready to enrol from 31 March 2026.

See AML/CTF Reform on the AUSTRAC website for more information, including toolkits specifically designed for small/medium firms. 

What regulated law firms need to do before 1 July 2026

AUSTRAC expects tranche 2 entities by 1 July 2026 to:

• be enrolled as a reporting entity;
• have an AML/CTF program either of their own design or using an AUSTRAC starter program available from December 2025;
• designate at least 1 senior manager to be responsible for approving their AML/CTF program;
• appoint an AML/CTF compliance officer, being an appropriate person in management;
• train their staff on the program and their internal policies and processes; and
• be ready to comply with their obligations under the Act.

What regulated law firms need to do after 1 July 2026

From 1 July 2026 regulated firms are required to:

• undertake an ML/TF risk assessment on their firm and keep it up to date;
• keep their AML/CTF policies and procedures up to date;
• conduct customer due diligence (CDD) on every client and for every new matter;
• comply with reporting requirements; and
• maintain appropriate records.

Customer due diligence

Initial customer due diligence requirements include:

• if the customer is an individual, taking reasonable steps to establish they are who they claim to be, including if they are a politically exposed person as defined in the Act;
• identifying the customer's ML/TF risk;
• collecting information about the customer appropriate to ML/TF risk; and
• verifying the customer information using independent and reliable data that is appropriate to ML/TF risk.

Ongoing CDD requires regulated firms to monitor their clients to appropriately identify, assess, manage, and mitigate the ML/TF risks they may reasonably face in providing services. This includes reviewing and updating client information, and monitoring for unusual transactions and behaviours that may trigger a requirement to lodge a report.

Simplified CDD is permissible in certain circumstances if the client's ML/TF risk is low and other requirements are met. 

Enhanced CDD must be applied in certain prescribed, high-risk circumstances. Regulated firms need to collect and verify additional information relevant to mitigating the identified higher risk and be reasonably satisfied that they know and understand their client's identity. See Enhanced customer due diligence (ECDD) program on the AUSTRAC website.

Policies

Regulated firms must have internal policies for AML/CTF that cover:

• how the firm will identify and report on the ML/CT risks it faces;
• designating an AML/CTF compliance officer;
• designating a senior manager responsible for approving any changes to the ML/TF risk assessment or AML/CTF policies;
• how the firm will undertake due diligence on staff whose role may allow them to facilitate serious financial crimes or whose role is relevant to AML/CTF compliance;
• how the firm will provide risk awareness and management training to staff;
• how, and when, to conduct an independent review of its AML/CTF program; and
• any other matters provided for in the Rules.

Reporting

Regulated firms are required to report certain transactions and suspicious activities to AUSTRAC. Reports that may be required include:

• Suspicious matter reports, if the firms suspects on reasonable grounds that a person is not who they claim to be, or that a matter is linked to criminal activity or the proceeds of crime. See Suspicious matter reports on the AUSTRAC website for more information.
• Threshold transaction reports for individual physical currency transactions of $10,000 or more.
• International value transfer service reports for certain international transfers.
• Cross-border movement reports if carrying physical currency or bearer negotiable instruments valued at A$10,000 or higher into or out of Australia.
• Annual compliance reports.

Privileged information

Section 242 of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 already provides that it does not affect the law relating to legal professional privilege. The amending Act provides stronger protections for the disclosure of information or documents that are subject to legal professional privilege, reflecting the fact that lawyers are now included in the regime.

See Schedule 4 and Clear protections for legal professional privilege on the AUSTRAC website.

Offence

The amending Act creates a new offence of 'tipping off', intended to prevent a reporting entity from disclosing information to their client, such as the fact that they have made a suspicious matter report, if it could reasonably prejudice an investigation.

See Schedule 5 of the amending Act and Tipping off on the AUSTRAC website.

Enforcement

After 1 July 2026, AUSTRAC will conduct enforcement operations against tranche 2 entities that:

• wilfully ignore the obligation to enrol; or
• are complicit with, or wilfully blind to, money laundering activities.

Guidance

See the following pages on the AUSTRAC website:

• Preparing for the changes if you’re newly regulated.
• New reforms guidance.
• Summary of AML/CTF obligations for tranche 2 entities.
• Education about reforms – a series of webinars.
• Future Law Compilation of the AML/CTF Act.

Publication updates

By Lawyers publications will be amended as required to account for these changes. Specific amendments will include First steps in all commentaries, the Conveyancing guides in each jurisdiction, and the Practice Management guide.

• Monitoring device conditions for DV offenders - QLD

The Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 has been amended to insert a new Part 3 Subdivision 3 that gives the court the power, when making or varying a domestic violence order, to impose a monitoring device condition on an adult offender for as long as the court thinks necessary if:

• it is necessary or desirable to protect a person from domestic violence or a child from being exposed to it; and
• the respondent has been charged with or convicted of a domestic violence offence or has a history of charges for domestic violence offences.

When deciding whether to impose the condition, the court must consider the personal circumstances of the offender, the location of the residence, their living arrangements, their ability to charge and maintain the device, and any views of the aggrieved person.

The aggrieved person may also be given a safety device, which is an electronic device designed to alert them to potential risks posed by the individual who has been fitted with a monitoring device.

Special provisions in the Act and the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Regulation 2023 prescribe how the information obtained from the monitoring device must be stored, may be shared, and can be use.

The By Lawyers Domestic Violence Order (QLD) guide has been updated accordingly.

• Supreme Court - Accuracy of references - QLD

The Supreme Court of Queensland has issued a new Practice Direction Number 5 of 2025 – Accuracy of References in Submissions addressing the risks associated with the use of generative artificial intelligence tools when drafting submissions to the court.

These risks are said to include the potential to:

• mislead the court and the other parties;
• cause delay and wasted costs;
• undermine the integrity of the court’s processes, and
• harm public confidence in the administration of justice.

The Practice Direction requires the identification of the person responsible for the submissions by name to ensure that they are properly checked for accuracy.

It is not sufficient that a law firm is named; an individual legal practitioner must take responsibility for the document.

The direction imposes an obligation on the responsible person to:

• verify the accuracy and relevance of any references to legislation, authorities, or other sources relied on in submissions; and
• ensure that the submissions reflect their judgment of the proper discharge of their professional and ethical obligations.

By placing their name on the document or by making oral submissions, the legal practitioner confirms to the court that they have performed this obligation.

Submissions that cite non-existent cases, legislation, or other material may lead to the legal practitioner who is responsible being referred to the Legal Services Commissioner for investigation, or being required to show cause why a personal costs order should not be made against them.

The By Lawyers Supreme Court Civil (QLD) publication has been updated accordingly.

• Civil rules amended in the Magistrates Court - SA

Two small but important changes to the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 took effect from 1 October 2025 under the Uniform Civil (No 15) Amendment Rules 2025.

Inactive List abolished

Previously, when a claim was filed in the Magistrates Court and no application for an extension of time made, or defence filed, or default judgment sought, within 6 months, the proceeding was entered into the list of inactive cases. If no action was taken within 1 further month, it was entered into the inactive list. After 2 months with no further action by any party, the claim would be dismissed.

The new r 64.3 streamlines that process. If after 5 months of filing a claim:

• no defence has been filed;
• no application for default judgment made;
• no moratorium sought;
• no court-ordered extension for service of the claim or the filing of a defence granted;

then the court notifies the applicant and the claim is dismissed after 4 months if no action is taken, with a right to seek reinstatement under r 64.4 by way of interlocutory application and supporting affidavit.

Moratoria

The new r 64.5(5) confirms that when an applicant elects to place a claim under a moratorium, it operates with respect to the entire claim and all parties. It is not possible to place some of the parties or only part of the claim under a moratorium.

Publication updates

The By Lawyers guide Magistrates Court Civil (SA) has been updated accordingly.

• Bail amendments - unacceptable risk test - VIC

Another tranche of the Bail Further Amendment Act 2025 commenced on 1 October 2025. It inserts a new provision in the Bail Act affecting the application of the test for whether there is an unacceptable risk that the accused will commit further offences if granted bail.

Existing sections 4D and 4E of the Bail Act respectively set out when the unacceptable risk test applies, and provide that bail must be refused if there is an unacceptable risk.

A new s 4F applies if the accused is charged with, and already on bail for, any of the following indictable offences under the following sections of the Crimes Act 1958:

• armed robbery: s 75A;
• aggravated burglary: s 77;
• home invasion: s 77A;
• aggravated home invasion: s 77B;
• carjacking: s 79; and
• aggravated carjacking: s 79A.

If so, the court must be satisfied to a high degree of probability that the person will not commit further offences. As with s 4E, the prosecution bears the burden of satisfying the court that a risk is unacceptable.

The By Lawyers Magistrates’ Court – Criminal (VIC) guide has been updated accordingly.