One area where artificial intelligence has taken a strong hold in litigation practice is in the preparation and cross-examination of expert witnesses. This shouldn’t be surprising. Expert opinions are often decisive in a dispute. For this reason, the litigant’s role in supporting or challenging expert testimony in depositions is a “leave no stone unturned” effort. Enter artificial intelligence.
Artificial intelligence tools do a good job of summarizing and extracting information from large amounts of data. They know how to highlight inconsistencies in the expert’s report. These may be internal inconsistencies or inconsistencies between opinions expressed in testimony given in other cases. AI tools can also formulate alternative conclusions that the expert might have rejected or failed to consider altogether.
AI review can be a useful source of prejudicial inquiries in cross-examination.
An example: The Center for Legal and Justice Technology at William and Mary Law School published an article on January 25 detailing how a law firm used artificial intelligence to review an expert witness’s 63 prior deposition transcripts. AI’s review found prior statements by the expert that were inconsistent with the current case report.
This example shows how AI can be extremely useful when directed towards expert testimony. For the sponsor, reviewing the AI may reveal weaknesses in the expert’s views. For parties challenging the expert’s opinions, IA review can be a useful source of prejudicial inquiries under cross-examination.
What else can AI do to help prepare expert witnesses?
- Using a technique known as “Nordstrom method”, AI can analyze testimony recorded during an expert rehearsal, compare it to previous testimony, spot inconsistencies and offer suggestions to make it more convincing.
- AI can translate the technical vocabulary of an expert witness into terms that might be more useful during direct examination or cross-examination, and more understandable to the investigator.
- Use a witness preparation technique called “AI shadowboxing” that uses AI to simulate questioning of the opposing attorney. AI shadowboxing helps experts refine answers before trial or deposition.
- Verify (or attempt to verify) scientific claims made in a report or expert testimony.
- Rapidly synthesize available scientific literature and other relevant information in a manner that facilitates the selection, preparation, and questioning of expert witnesses.
Prudent litigators will want to approach the use of these tools with caution. Litigants now know Kohls v. EllisonNo. 24-cv-3754 (D. Minn., Jan. 10, 2025), in which the trial judge rejected a expert report containing several non-existent AI-generated hallucinatory quotes. THE Elison This case will not soon be forgotten because, ironically, the subject of the expert report was the ability of AI to mislead.
With both experts and litigators using artificial intelligence tools, the Elison This scenario is likely to happen again (and again) if AI is not used carefully and with an awareness of the consequences of negligence. In fact, the parties LeDoux v. Outliers, Inc.No. 3:24-cv-05808 (WD Wash.), were informed on January 9 that they expected a ruling on the defendant’s motion to strike an expert report because, allegedly, it contained dozens of false statements and quotes due to AI-generated hallucinations.
The prevalence of AI use among experts is not precisely known, although we do know that according to one Pew Research Survey 202576% of researchers view artificial intelligence positively. And artificial intelligence is used by large consulting companies to generate government reports. It goes without saying that the results of artificial intelligence are present in numerous expert reports offered today in litigation.
In the United Kingdom, November 2025 Investigation of Bond Solon’s expert witnessesrevealed that a significant number of expert witnesses are using artificial intelligence in court-related assignments. According to the survey, 20% of responding expert witnesses said they had used artificial intelligence tools. This figure, although low, is nevertheless double that of the previous year’s survey.
The obvious practice point here was noted in the investigative report: “If an expert chooses to use AI technology in constructing their report, it is essential that they double-check the AI-produced material to determine the accuracy of the information. Incorrect information will expose the expert to criticism and potentially impact the outcome of a case.”
Careful litigators might consider providing expert witnesses with advice that specifically addresses AI-related issues. For example:
- Provide the expert with ethical guidance in the relevant jurisdiction and judicial opinions explaining the consequences of presenting evidence containing AI-inspired errors.
- Remind the expert that confidential client information should not be provided as input to AI tools.
- Require experts to document their use of artificial intelligence tools.
- Insist that experts explicitly confirm that their opinions were formed independently of any help they may have gotten from artificial intelligence tools.
- Research local disclosure requirements, if any, regarding the use of AI in court presentations and take steps to ensure compliance.
In summary, the most important point to remember is one that trial lawyers now know: artificial intelligence is a weapon, a powerful weapon, in the hands of an experienced and competent trial lawyer. This is truly the message sent by all ethical opinions and practice guidelines published to date. Artificial intelligence does not replace – not yet, and perhaps never – the lawyer in litigation.
