Prepare a delay and quantum issues table from the experts’ drafts
Key facts
- Human involvement
- YellowClose supervision
- How AI is used
- Index each expert’s delay event, method and dollar figure, and list where the drafts disagree. Write no part of an expert report.
- What the lawyer must review
- If the expert will testify in federal court, Rule 702 requires the proponent to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the testimony meets the rule, including that the specialised knowledge will help the trier of fact. The lawyer, not the tool, decides whether the drafts do that. Formal Opinion 512 requires review of any generated comparison before it is used in a filing, and Rule 11 applies if the comparison is later presented to a court. Keep the drafts out of a public tool under Rule 1.6.
- Written for / version
- United States versionUS
Who does what
| Role | What they do |
|---|---|
| Assistance | Potential support includes extracting and organising information. Confirm the tool’s capability and permitted scope. |
| Lawyer | Set the scope, supervise the work closely, verify every part relied on, resolve omissions and exceptions, and approve the exact output. |
Checklist
- Trace every relied-on figure to its source, confirm dates and assumptions, and independently recalculate totals or derived amounts.
- Check the current court or regulator requirements, prescribed form and attachments for the intended document and filing.
- Check the specialist’s assumptions, qualifications and limits. Obtain the relevant expert or specialist review before relying on a technical conclusion.
- Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
- Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.