Guide
Experts who use a generative tool need to be told the court’s rule, and the report needs a human check for citations the expert did not read.
Send the expert the practice note, not a summary from memory. In the NSW Supreme Court that is SC Gen 23. In the Federal Court it is GPN-AI. An expert who used a chatbot on a previous report will assume they may do it again unless the letter of instruction says otherwise.
In the NSW Supreme Court, do not let the expert draft any part of the report with generative AI unless the Court has given prior leave. Put that in the instructions. If leave is not sought, the report has to say that generative AI was not used to generate its content. Disclosure of use is not a substitute for leave. A report that arrives with generated content and no leave is not ready to serve. Read the note of the forum before you assume the same rule.
Read every case and paper the report cites, the same way you would read citations in submissions. GPN-AI requires the authority to support the proposition. An expert’s confidence is not a substitute for the pinpoint. Remove anything you cannot open.
Keep the letter of instruction, the note you sent, the expert’s disclosure and your citation check. If the court asks what the expert’s tool was allowed to do, the file should answer without a reconstruction.
Record the checks: Commercial litigation tasks · Open the court note for the forum
Commercial litigation tasks · NSW SC Gen 23 · Federal Court GPN-AI · Checking citations · All guides
It depends on the court. In the NSW Supreme Court, prior leave is required before generative AI drafts any part of an expert report. Saying that a tool was used does not replace that leave. Do not assume another court has copied the rule.
The expert’s own tools are a matter for the instructions and the court’s note. This guide does not approve a product for writing an expert opinion.
The lawyers briefing the expert. A citation the expert cannot show you is not filed.
