---
title: "Draft instructions to a forensic expert and review the draft report"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/criminal-law/draft-instructions-to-a-forensic-expert-and-review-the-draft-report"
type: "task"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A20-T1-R11"
practice_area: "Criminal Law"
tier: "red"
lawyer_review: "required"
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# Draft instructions to a forensic expert and review the draft report

> Table the disputed facts, the exhibits and the continuity gaps in the brief of evidence with a page cite beside each, drawing only on the brief material the lawyer may lawfully put into a tool — sensitive evidence that…

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/criminal-law/draft-instructions-to-a-forensic-expert-and-review-the-draft-report  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-22

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

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Criminal Law](https://ailawframework.com/practice/criminal-law.md) |
| Human involvement | Red: Lawyer writes; AI may check, clarify or collect data |
| How AI is used | Table the disputed facts, the exhibits and the continuity gaps in the brief of evidence with a page cite beside each, drawing only on the brief material the lawyer may lawfully put into a tool — sensitive evidence that cannot be copied or removed from police custody stays out. The lawyer writes the letter of instruction. On the draft report, set the assumptions, methods and conclusions beside the lawyer's letter and flag every assumption with no source in the brief, every question in the letter the report does not answer, and anything the expert code or the rules for expert reports require that is missing. |
| What the lawyer must review | The lawyer writes the letter of instruction and owns the assumed facts and the question in it, checking each assumption against the client's instructions and the brief and that the question sits within the expert's field. The expert's duty is to the court. Treat the letter as material the Crown and the court will see once the report is served — serving and relying on the report will ordinarily waive privilege over the instructions, and the code requires the report to state them — so check service and disclosure obligations before using the report. |
| Written for / versions | 1 jurisdiction versions below |

## Checking plan

**Lawyer review required**

The responsible lawyer reviews the work against the instructions, sources and intended use.

- 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. Calculate operative dates independently from the current rule and actual triggering event. Check exceptions and record the verified deadline.
2. Check the current court or regulator requirements, prescribed form and attachments for the intended document and filing.
3. Check the specialist’s assumptions, qualifications and limits. Obtain the relevant expert or specialist review before relying on a technical conclusion.
4. Review the original source set for relevant material absent from the output, including contrary evidence, qualifications and unresolved gaps.
5. Preserve original files and relevant metadata. Document provenance and handling, and seek forensic review where authenticity needs to be resolved.
6. Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
7. 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/criminal-law/draft-instructions-to-a-forensic-expert-and-review-the-draft-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.*