The Law Behind It —
and Where It Stops.
We would rather tell you plainly what stands on settled legislation, what is widely relied upon in practice, and what has not yet been tested in a courtroom. For each capability below: the legislation it rests on, how it complies, and an honest note on whether a court has ruled on it. Where we say a position is "settled," we mean the legislation expressly provides for it — not that a case has decided this particular product.
⚖️ Please read this first
This page is general information about the legislative basis of the platform's features. It is not legal advice, it is current as at June 2026, and it concerns Queensland and Commonwealth law — other states and territories differ, sometimes significantly (recording laws especially). Legislation changes and individual outcomes turn on their facts.
We have deliberately not cited specific court judgments: the statutes below are real and current, but whether a court accepts a given document, signature or recording depends on the circumstances of your matter. Confirm the position for any real matter with your lawyer before relying on it.
Electronic Signatures
Settled in legislationElectronic Transactions (Queensland) Act 2001 (ss 8, 14) and the Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth).
A transaction is not invalid merely because it was done electronically (s 8). A signature requirement is met where the method identifies the person and shows their intention, is as reliable as appropriate for the purpose, and the recipient consents (s 14). Our e-sign captures identity, intention, a time-stamp and an audit trail to meet that test.
The statutory framework is well established and relied upon every day. Two honest caveats: the Act's Schedule 1 carves out exceptions (for example, filing documents with a court or tribunal), and "as reliable as appropriate" is judged on the facts — so some documents still need a specific method or a wet signature. Your lawyer advises on which.
Electronic Evidence & Chain of Custody
Generally acceptedEvidence Act 1977 (Qld) for state proceedings; Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) for federal proceedings — including the provisions on documents, electronic records and business records.
Electronic documents are admissible; the party relying on them must be able to show the record is what it purports to be. Our capture preserves the time, place, device and an unbroken record, and a SHA-256 hash so any later change is detectable — the material a court looks for when weighing authenticity and integrity.
That electronic evidence can be admitted is settled. But admission and weight are always the court's decision on the day, on the facts before it. Our tools help you prove integrity; they cannot guarantee a court will admit a given item or what weight it will give it.
Audio, Call & Domestic-Violence Recording
Settled basis · use not fully testedInvasion of Privacy Act 1971 (Qld) (listening-device provisions); other states' Surveillance Devices Acts; and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) for calls in transit.
In Queensland, a person who is a party to a private conversation may record it without the other party's consent. The client app's recording — including the discreet domestic-violence mode — is built for the device owner to record their own situation, which is why capture is bound to the owner.
The party-to-the-conversation position is established in Qld. The honest limits: publishing or communicating a recording is separately restricted under the same Act; other states differ and some require all-party consent; recording a conversation you are not part of can be an offence; and how a court treats covert or DV-mode recordings is decided case by case. This is the most fact-sensitive area on the platform — use it on your own device, lawfully, and on your lawyer's advice.
Authentication Certificates & "Certified Copies"
Not yet tested as a productNo single Act makes software-issued certificates "certified true copies." Certification of a copy is done by an authorised person (a solicitor, JP or Cdec) under the relevant rules; integrity sits with the evidence principles in the Evidence Acts.
Our authentication certificate attests to a document's content by its hash and records when and by whom it was registered, with QR verification. It is an integrity and authentication aid — strong evidence that a document has not changed — not a statutory certified copy in itself.
We are not aware of a court ruling on this certificate as a product. Where a true "certified copy" is required, an authorised person must still certify it. We present the certificate honestly as proof of integrity, and the public demo is explicitly marked as a demonstration, not a legal certification.
Document Retention & Destruction
Settled in legislationLegal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) and the Legal Profession Regulation 2017 (Qld) — including the minimum retention of file and trust records.
Retention schedules are calculated from the matter close date, with longer or indefinite flags for wills and property matters; destruction batches are produced with certificates for your records. The framework implements the statutory minimums.
The retention periods are set by statute and regulation — settled. Responsibility for what is destroyed remains the firm's; some documents (original wills, deeds, minors' matters) need extra care, so destruction is proposed for the practitioner to approve, never automatic.
Trust Accounting
Settled in legislationLegal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) (trust money provisions) and the Legal Profession Regulation 2017 (Qld) — trust records, reporting and the prescribed forms.
Trust money is kept separate from office money, with the regulation's record-keeping, reconciliations and reporting built in. The system prepares the reports and forms; the practitioner reviews and certifies them.
The obligations are statutory and audited by the Law Society — settled. Our software assists compliance; it does not replace the principal's responsibility or the external examination.
Privacy & Data Handling
Generally acceptedPrivacy Act 1988 (Cth) and the Australian Privacy Principles, including APP 8 (cross-border disclosure) and the Notifiable Data Breaches scheme.
Hosting on your own hardware in Australia keeps client data out of overseas processing, which directly addresses the cross-border-disclosure concerns of APP 8 — there is no foreign cloud provider's terms sitting over your files.
The APPs apply and on-shore hosting plainly reduces overseas-disclosure exposure. Breach-notification obligations still rest with the firm, and whether the Privacy Act binds a given small practice depends on its circumstances — a question for your lawyer.
Court Procedure & Deadlines
Settled in legislationUniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) and the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) — service, court deadlines and limitation periods.
Service requirements, court-listing formats and limitation periods are built into the workflow, and listings are matched to matters with early warnings, so a date surfaces against the right file before it bites.
The rules and periods are current law. The reminders assist the practitioner; they do not replace the practitioner's own diligence, and electronic filing has its own separate requirements.
AI Assistance to the Lawyer
Not yet testedNo statute "authorises" AI assistance. The governing duties are the Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules 2023 and the practitioner's duties to the client and to the court under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld).
The design keeps the lawyer as the decision-maker: the system summarises, drafts and binds evidence to decisions, but every output is reviewed and signed by the practitioner. The duties stay with the lawyer, which is where the law puts them.
The professional treatment of AI in legal practice is still developing and largely untested by Australian courts and regulators. That is precisely why the platform is assistive by design and never autonomous — the safest position while the law settles.