My first contract review as a junior lawyer intrigued me: the tricks and loops a contract could contain, and the negotiations over words to give them meaning and produce an intended outcome. I still enjoy finding the meeting of minds a contract can bring.

In my last article, I argued that the development of legal judgment matters. The profession should be cautious of any technology that removes the cognitive struggle through which lawyers learn to analyse facts, weigh competing arguments and exercise professional judgment.

Several Australian organisations, corporate and sporting alike, have spent this year cleaning up after crises they should have caught earlier. Each scandal shares the same thread: policy alone couldn’t make the right judgement. That takes people with the requisite skill, diversity and experience.

Albanese's 15 July speech ended voluntary AI guidance in Australia. Five new workstreams, standards, copyright, data centres, energy and workforce protections, now form a single project: building sovereign AI capability.

The US restricts its most capable AI to vetted operators defending critical infrastructure. Synlaw asks whether Australia's SOCI Act and Cyber Security Act could support the same trusted-deployment model here.

Our paralegal Alex makes the case that AI won't end junior legal careers, it will change how they begin.

Australia's new Office of AI sits inside PM&C, signalling that AI is now a matter of national sovereignty. Synlaw sets out four priorities: risk-based regulation, sovereign data protection, human oversight, and fair IP rules for local creators.

As the Prime Minister rightly pointed out, Australia cannot afford to be 'subcontracting our sovereignty and security to the control of foreign monopolies'.

87% of Australians are more concerned about privacy than they were five years ago. Only 4% trust AI companies.

Right now, Australia’s AI regulatory landscape is decentralised and includes significant reliance on voluntary AI adoption.

For the public sector, the priority is not speed, its sovereignty, security and compliance. The question is not whether to use AI, but when and under what conditions.

What if AI doesn't give me the 'gift of time'? What if the content pushed produces more than any decision-maker has time to consider? What if the expectations to manage the content increase?

AI doesn't solve much on its own. The gap between AI use cases, collaboration and productivity is something no one is talking about or solving.

Few, if any, talk about helping clients use AI safely to become more productive. Why? Well, because that would be committing 'BigLaw' heresy.

If you have spent years developing judgment, here is the secret: you are sitting on exactly the asset that AI makes more valuable, not less.

What does it mean to procure with integrity?

AI will not replace inhouse lawyers. But inhouse lawyers who master AI will replace those who don’t.

Now is the time for Commonwealth entities to “lean into” their strategic procurement planning to get the best out of procurements.

Exploring the criticality of digital accessibility for Australian citizens.