Is Using AI for Clerkship Applications Cheating? What Australian Law Firms Think in 2026
I get asked this a lot. It's the single most common question from students considering Resum8, and it's a fair one to ask.
The short answer: no.
The longer answer requires looking at what the firms themselves are doing.
Every major Australian law firm is using AI right now
This isn't a prediction. It's already happened. Here's a sample:
King & Wood Mallesons rolled out Harvey AI to 1,200+ lawyers across Australia and Singapore. Within six weeks, 86% of their lawyers had completed AI training. They identified 284 real use cases across litigation, banking and finance, M&A, real estate, and tax.
Clayton Utz adopted Harvey firmwide for contract review, document drafting, due diligence, and data extraction. They were among the first tenants in Harvey's secure Australian environment. Their feedback after piloting with 100+ lawyers? "Overwhelmingly positive."
Gilbert + Tobin launched Harvey across 650 lawyers and built their own proprietary AI tool called GilBot. Their CEO's position: the firm is approaching a mindset of "Why not use AI?"
Allens became the first Australian firm to partner with Legora, a collaborative AI platform, while also adopting Thomson Reuters' CoCounsel, running a dual AI platform strategy.
Herbert Smith Freehills (now HSF Kramer) appointed a Global Chief AI Officer and declared 2026 "The Year AI and Legal Technology Become Business as Usual."
Ashurst was the first global law firm to roll out Harvey firmwide, covering all 4,300+ people worldwide.
And it's not just the top tier. Holding Redlich is piloting Cicero AI across dispute resolution, workplace relations, and construction. Lander & Rogers runs a LawTech Hub accelerator for legal AI startups, now in its ninth cohort. MinterEllison was one of only 600 companies globally invited to Microsoft's Copilot Early Access Program. Corrs, DLA Piper, Baker McKenzie, Dentons and others.
A 2026 industry report found that 98% of Australian legal professionals use AI in some capacity. Australia is outpacing the US, Canada, the UK, and Ireland in legal AI maturity.
These are the firms you're applying to work at. They're using AI for the same tasks they'll eventually ask you to do: drafting, research, document review, due diligence. The tools are different, but the principle is identical.
The distinction that matters: AI-written vs AI-assisted
There's a meaningful difference between two things:
AI-written means you paste a job ad into ChatGPT and submit whatever comes out. No input from you. No editing. No substance beyond what the model generated from a generic prompt.
AI-assisted means you use a tool to structure your experiences, match them to what a specific firm is looking for, and produce a draft that you then review, edit, and make your own.
One is lazy. The other is what professionals already do.
Lawyers use precedent databases to draft contracts. They don't write every clause from scratch. They start from a template that reflects best practice and customise it for the specific matter. Investment bankers use financial model templates. Consultants use frameworks and methodology decks. Nobody calls that cheating.
The question isn't whether you used a tool. It's whether the substance is yours.
What actually happens when you use Resum8
One of the most common questions I hear from students is whether the output is generic. If you and a friend both applied to the same firm using Resum8, would you end up submitting similar letters?
Here's why that doesn't happen.
Before any document is generated, you go through a coaching process. You're asked about your specific experiences, your motivations, what draws you to this area of law, what you'd want a recruiter to know about you. That coaching conversation isn't optional context: it becomes the foundation for every document the tool generates. Two students with different experiences and different coaching answers will get genuinely different outputs, because the raw material is different.
This is not a paste-and-submit tool. You can't drop in a job description and get a finished cover letter. The coaching has to happen first.
Each firm profile is built from multiple data sources
Generating a cover letter for Maddocks draws on a different profile than generating one for Corrs Chambers Westgarth, because they are genuinely different firms. Each firm profile is built from multiple sources: Chambers rankings, WGEA gender equity data, Glassdoor reviews, graduate publications, and each firm's own published materials. The same experience you've described in coaching will be framed differently depending on which firm's profile it's being matched against.
If you want to test this: generate for one firm, then generate for another with the same experiences. The letters should be substantively different, not just with the name swapped.
The output is a first draft
I'm direct about this: the tool does the structural heavy lifting, roughly 80% of the work. You spend your time on the 20% that's distinctive.
That's the sentence that sounds like you. The connection to a practice area that comes from genuine curiosity rather than research. The detail that only you would include because only you have lived it.
The tool cannot produce that 20% for you. What it can do is remove the hours you'd otherwise spend on structure, so you have energy for the part that actually differentiates your application.
One thing worth being clear about: specific inputs produce specific outputs. If your coaching answers are vague, the output will be vague. Treat the coaching process seriously and the draft you get back will be worth editing.
What firms actually care about
When a recruiter reads your cover letter, they're assessing three things:
- Do you understand what we do? Can you connect your experience to our practice areas in a way that shows genuine research, not surface-level browsing?
- Can you communicate clearly? Is your writing structured, concise, and specific? Does it demonstrate the analytical thinking they'll need from a junior lawyer?
- Are you someone we'd want in the office? Does your letter give a sense of who you are beyond your grades?
None of these are undermined by using an AI drafting tool. If anything, a well-structured draft gives you more time to focus on the parts that actually differentiate you: the specific experiences, the genuine interest in a practice area, the detail that makes a recruiter stop scanning and start reading.
The real risk isn't using AI. It's not using it well.
If you paste a job description into ChatGPT and submit the raw output, that's a problem. Not because it's "cheating". Because the output isn't good enough. Generic AI-generated text reads like generic AI-generated text. Recruiters who read 400 applications can spot it immediately.
The risk is the same risk that existed before AI: submitting something generic that doesn't reflect genuine effort or thought. AI just makes it faster to produce a bad application.
A good AI-assisted workflow looks like this:
- You provide the substance. Your experiences, your interests, your motivations. The tool can't invent these.
- The tool structures and tailors. It matches your experiences to what a specific firm values, produces a draft in the right format, and ensures the letter addresses what that firm is actually looking for.
- You make it yours. Read it aloud. Does it sound like you? Change what doesn't. Add the detail that makes it specific: a project you're proud of, a connection to a practice area that comes from genuine curiosity. The best applications are 80% structure and 20% you.
What about academic integrity policies?
Some universities have policies around AI use in assessed work. Clerkship applications are not assessed university work: they're professional documents submitted to an employer. The same way you'd use Grammarly to check a cover letter or ask a friend to review your resume, using a purpose-built tool to structure your application is a normal part of the process.
That said, if your university's career service has specific guidance on AI in applications, follow it. I'm not suggesting you ignore institutional advice. I'm pointing out that the firms themselves have moved well past the question of whether to use these tools.
The numbers tell the story
Some context that might help you think about this:
- 98% of Australian legal professionals use AI in some capacity
- 52% of firms have formal AI policies
- Over half of firms are now actively using generative AI tools
- US law graduate employment hit its highest rate ever recorded. AI hasn't reduced hiring
- New legal roles are emerging: legal engineers, prompt designers, AI compliance officers
The legal profession isn't shrinking because of AI. It's changing. The junior lawyers who will thrive are the ones who can use AI tools effectively, not the ones who avoided them.
Harvey AI, the platform used by KWM, Clayton Utz, Corrs, Ashurst, and others, reached $300M in annual recurring revenue by mid-2026 with an $11 billion valuation, up from $195M ARR and $8B valuation at end of 2025. Firms aren't experimenting with AI anymore. They're operationalising it.
Where I stand
Resum8 is a drafting tool. The substance is yours: your experiences, your motivations, your career story. The tool structures it, tailors it to the firm you're applying to, and produces a draft that reflects what that specific firm is looking for.
I built this for law students, and built it knowing you'd think carefully about whether to use it. That's a good instinct. Question your tools. Read the privacy policy. Understand what you're using and why.
But don't let anxiety about AI stop you from using a tool that every firm you're applying to already uses themselves. The partners reviewing your application are using Harvey to draft their own documents. The associates who'll supervise your clerkship are using Copilot for their research. The question isn't whether AI belongs in legal work: it's already there.
The question is whether you'll use it to write a better application, or spend another night copy-pasting the same cover letter and swapping the firm name.
3 free credits when you sign up. No credit card required.
---
Sources: All firm-specific claims are sourced from official press releases, firm websites, and published industry reports. A full list of sources with links is available on request.