---
title: "Draft expert instructions and review the draft class-action report"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/class-actions-representative-proceedings/draft-expert-instructions-and-review-the-draft-class-action-report"
type: "task"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A7-T1-R9"
practice_area: "Class Actions / Representative Proceedings"
tier: "red"
lawyer_review: "required"
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# Draft expert instructions and review the draft class-action report

> Organise the common questions, the class definition and the assumed facts the lawyer has settled into a schedule that sets the pleaded common question, the source document and the assumed fact beside each, and list the…

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/class-actions-representative-proceedings/draft-expert-instructions-and-review-the-draft-class-action-report  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-22

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Class Actions / Representative Proceedings](https://ailawframework.com/practice/class-actions-representative-proceedings.md) |
| Human involvement | Red: Lawyer writes; AI may check, clarify or collect data |
| How AI is used | Organise the common questions, the class definition and the assumed facts the lawyer has settled into a schedule that sets the pleaded common question, the source document and the assumed fact beside each, and list the material the expert has not yet been given. On the returned draft, table each assumption, the sample frame and each opinion against the common question it answers, flagging every assumption with no source in the brief, every sample criterion that does not match the class definition, and every question in the letter the report does not answer. The lawyer writes the letter of instruction; the tool writes nothing into it and nothing into the expert's report. |
| What the lawyer must review | The lawyer writes the letter of instruction and settles every question and assumed fact in it, confirming each is supported by the pleaded common questions and by provable evidence. Check that the expert's sample and methodology match the class definition and not merely the pleading, and remember that a determination on a common question binds group members who never saw the letter. The instructions are disclosable with the report; the expert's duty is to the court and the opinion stays the expert's own, and disclose any AI use in preparing material that informed it where the court's practice note requires. |
| Written for / versions | 1 jurisdiction versions below |

## Checking plan

**Source-by-source verification**

Trace relied-on content to independent sources and check for relevant material the output has missed.

- What the AI does: Potential support includes preparing preliminary structure or wording and summarising source material. Confirm the tool’s capability and permitted scope.
- What the lawyer does: Set the scope, verify the evidence, resolve exceptions and approve the final output for its intended use.
- Who reviews: Responsible lawyer with competence in the matter
- Basis: Suggested checking approach based on the task guidance. Complete the assessment for the actual tool, information and jurisdiction.
- Why: The plan reflects the described work and review requirements. Policy colours are not used to determine permission or checking.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Check the specialist’s assumptions, qualifications and limits. Obtain the relevant expert or specialist review before relying on a technical conclusion.
2. Review the original source set for relevant material absent from the output, including contrary evidence, qualifications and unresolved gaps.
3. Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
4. Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.

## Notes

- Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts. The checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.

## Jurisdiction versions

| Jurisdiction | Level |
| --- | --- |
| [United States](https://ailawframework.com/practice/class-actions-representative-proceedings/draft-expert-instructions-and-review-the-draft-class-action-report/united-states.md) | Red |

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*