AI in Licensed Professions
AI and licensed professions lawyer
Fixed fee counsel for founders whose AI product does what a licensed professional does. Legal services, financial advice and clinical decision support all sit behind regulatory perimeters that were drawn long before your product existed, and every one of them still applies.
Australia has no standalone AI Act. Your product is governed by existing technology neutral laws, which means the question is never whether the rules reach you. It is where the line sits for your product and who designs the path across it first.
Book a consultation or call (07) 3519 5616.
The problem we solve
An AI product in a licensed profession fails at the perimeter, not in the code. The model works, the users love it, and then someone asks whether the output is legal practice, financial advice or a therapeutic claim. If that question is answered for the first time by a regulator, the answer arrives on the regulator's terms.
The counterexample already exists. Garfield AI was authorised by the Solicitors Regulation Authority as the first firm in England and Wales permitted to deliver regulated legal services primarily through AI, then won a contested county court trial in May, recovering 7,000 pounds for a client who paid roughly 400 pounds. The product was never the AI. It was the authorisation, and the authorisation was a designed outcome. The same race is now running in every licensed profession in Australia, and nobody has crossed the line yet.
Who we act for
AI legal product founders
Building software that drafts, advises or runs disputes. Australia allowed incorporated legal practices and non-lawyer ownership years before the UK created alternative business structures, so the scaffolding for a Garfield style model already exists here. What does not exist is the precedent, and the first well designed application creates it.
AI financial advice and fintech products
ASIC's position is that obligations under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), including the duty to act efficiently, honestly and fairly, are technology neutral and apply to AI systems as they apply to human advisers. Where your product sits against the advice perimeter decides your licensing posture before you write a line of marketing copy.
Clinical and health AI products
The TGA regulates software as a medical device, and whether your tool is one turns on its intended purpose. Getting the boundary wrong means supplying an unapproved therapeutic good, which is a launch decision you cannot unmake later.
Professional firms deploying AI at scale
The Law Council of Australia's position is that the professional duty of competence extends to supervising AI output. Deploying AI across a regulated practice is a governance design problem, and the firms that solve it first set the standard the rest are measured against.
The First Approval Program
A staged path from product concept to regulatory position, priced as fixed fees so the cost of certainty is known before each phase starts.
Phase 1: Perimeter analysis
Where your product sits against the licensing perimeter that governs it. Legal practice, financial advice or therapeutic goods, assessed against your actual product rather than your marketing language. You get the map: the boundary, the exposure if you are on the wrong side of it and the realistic paths across. Fixed fee.
Phase 2: Structure and regulator strategy
The corporate structure, supervision architecture and evidence base that make yes the easy answer for the regulator, and the sequence in which the approach is made. Fixed fee, agreed after Phase 1.
Phase 3: Operational compliance
The obligations that switch on once you are live, including the disclosure, supervision and governance settings that have to survive scrutiny, built before the regulator asks to see them. Fixed fee.
Why a law firm
Your perimeter analysis, structuring advice and regulator strategy are protected by legal professional privilege. Our advice carries the professional liability of a regulated profession. And your matter is run end to end by a senior lawyer, which matters when the question is whether software is doing the work of one.
Read the detail
Could an AI Law Firm Launch in Australia? The Garfield Question
The UK authorised its first AI driven law firm and it won in court. Why the door in Australia is less locked than most founders assume.
The 10 December 2026 ADM Disclosure Rules: Who Is Caught
From 10 December 2026, APP entities must disclose automated decision making in their privacy policies. The net is wider than the label suggests.
Can AI Give Financial Advice in Australia?
ASIC says the Corporations Act is technology neutral. What that means for every product that gets anywhere near the advice perimeter.
Is Your AI Health Tool a Medical Device? The TGA Question
Whether the TGA treats your software as a medical device turns on intended purpose, and getting the boundary wrong means supplying an unapproved therapeutic good.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there an AI Act in Australia?
No. Australia has no standalone AI Act. AI products are governed through existing technology neutral laws, which means the regime that applies to your product is the one that governs the profession your product touches. That is usually harder to navigate than a dedicated AI statute would be, because the boundaries were drawn without your product in mind.
Can an AI product deliver legal services in Australia?
The UK has already authorised a firm to deliver regulated legal services primarily through AI, and Australia built the corporate structures that model needs years earlier. What is missing is a precedent, and whether the first Australian application succeeds turns on how the path to the regulator is designed. That is Phase 1 and Phase 2 work.
Does ASIC regulate AI financial advice tools?
ASIC's position is that obligations under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), including the duty to act efficiently, honestly and fairly, are technology neutral and apply to AI systems as they apply to human advisers. ASIC has also publicly questioned whether current regulation around AI is sufficient. Where your product sits against the advice perimeter is a legal analysis, not a product decision.
Is my health AI tool a medical device?
It turns on intended purpose, and classification turns on risk. The TGA regulates software as a medical device, and the boundary does not sit where most product teams assume it does. Getting it wrong means supplying an unapproved therapeutic good, so the analysis belongs before launch, not after.
What does it cost?
Each phase is a fixed fee agreed before it starts, scaled to the product and the regime. No hourly rate ambush.
Discuss your product
The cheapest time to design a regulatory path is before launch and before any regulator has formed a view of your product. Call (07) 3519 5616 or book a consultation.
Book a ConsultationThis page is general information, not legal advice. The regimes it describes are moving, so some dates and rules will change. Obtain advice tailored to your circumstances before acting. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.