AI Expert Witness Guide: Finding, Qualifying, and Working with AI Experts

Introduction: The Critical Role of AI Experts

#

As artificial intelligence systems proliferate across industries, from healthcare diagnostics to autonomous vehicles to financial underwriting, litigation involving AI has exploded. In virtually every AI-related case, expert testimony is not just helpful but essential. Judges and juries lack the technical background to evaluate whether an AI system was properly designed, tested, deployed, or monitored. Expert witnesses bridge that knowledge gap.

But AI expert testimony presents unique challenges that distinguish it from traditional technical expertise. AI systems are often “black boxes” whose decision-making processes are opaque even to their creators. The technology evolves at a pace that outstrips judicial understanding. And the interdisciplinary nature of AI, spanning computer science, statistics, domain expertise, and ethics, means that a single expert may not suffice.

This guide provides practical guidance for attorneys navigating the AI expert witness landscape, whether you’re prosecuting claims against AI developers or defending against them.

Types of AI Experts Needed

#

Technical AI Experts

#

Machine Learning Engineers and Data Scientists

The most fundamental category of AI expert is the technical specialist who understands how AI systems actually work. These experts can testify about:

• Model Architecture: How the AI system is structured, what algorithms it uses, and why certain technical choices were made
• Training Data: The quantity, quality, representativeness, and potential biases in data used to train the model
• Model Performance: Accuracy metrics, error rates, and how the system performs across different populations or conditions
• Testing and Validation: Whether appropriate testing protocols were followed before deployment
• Technical Standards: Whether the development process adhered to industry best practices

Technical experts typically hold advanced degrees (Ph.D. or Master’s) in computer science, machine learning, statistics, or related fields. They may be academics, industry practitioners, or consultants who specialize in AI systems.

Qualifications to Look For:

• Ph.D. in computer science, machine learning, or statistics
• Peer-reviewed publications in relevant AI domains
• Hands-on experience building production AI systems
• Track record of testifying in similar cases
• No conflicts of interest with parties

Software Engineering Experts

Distinct from AI/ML specialists, traditional software engineering experts may be needed to address:

• Software development lifecycle practices
• Quality assurance and testing procedures
• Documentation and version control
• System integration and deployment
• Post-deployment monitoring and maintenance

These experts understand how AI systems fit within broader software systems and whether proper engineering practices were followed.

Domain and Industry Experts

#

Technical AI expertise alone is rarely sufficient. Courts also need experts who understand how AI applies within specific industries:

Healthcare AI Experts

For cases involving AI diagnostic tools, clinical decision support systems, or AI-assisted treatment:

• Physicians who understand clinical workflow integration
• Radiologists experienced with AI imaging analysis
• Clinical informaticists who bridge technology and medicine
• FDA regulatory experts for medical device AI

Financial Services AI Experts

For cases involving algorithmic trading, credit scoring, fraud detection, or robo-advisors:

• Quantitative finance professionals
• Banking compliance specialists
• Consumer finance experts
• Financial regulators (former or current)

Autonomous Vehicle Experts

For cases involving self-driving technology:

• Automotive engineers
• ADAS (Advanced Driver Assistance Systems) specialists
• Sensor technology experts (LIDAR, radar, camera systems)
• Human factors engineers

Employment and HR AI Experts

For cases involving hiring algorithms, performance evaluation AI, or workplace monitoring:

• Industrial-organizational psychologists
• HR technology specialists
• Employment law practitioners
• Labor economists

AI Ethics and Governance Experts

#

A growing category of expert addresses the ethical dimensions of AI:

AI Ethics Specialists

These experts can testify about:

• Whether appropriate ethical review processes were followed
• Industry standards for responsible AI development
• Bias detection and mitigation obligations
• Transparency and explainability requirements
• Human oversight expectations

AI Governance Experts

Governance experts focus on organizational practices:

• AI risk management frameworks
• Board and executive oversight of AI
• AI policy development and implementation
• Regulatory compliance programs

Standard of Care Experts

#

Perhaps most critically, plaintiffs need experts who can establish what the applicable standard of care required, and defendants need experts who can defend their practices as meeting that standard.

Standard of care testimony typically comes from practitioners who are peers of the defendant. For AI cases, this might include:

• Chief AI Officers or AI team leaders from comparable organizations
• AI consultants who advise similar companies
• Academics who study AI deployment practices
• Former regulators who understand compliance expectations

Qualifying AI Experts Under Daubert

#

The Daubert Framework

#

In federal courts and most state courts, expert testimony must satisfy the requirements of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and its progeny. The court serves as a “gatekeeper” to ensure that expert testimony is both relevant and reliable.

Under Daubert, courts consider factors including:

1. Testability: Can the theory or technique be (and has it been) tested?
2. Peer Review: Has the theory or technique been subjected to peer review and publication?
3. Error Rate: What is the known or potential rate of error?
4. Standards: Are there standards controlling the technique’s operation?
5. General Acceptance: Has the theory or technique gained general acceptance in the relevant scientific community?

Daubert Challenges to AI Experts

#

AI experts face heightened Daubert scrutiny for several reasons:

Novelty of the Field

AI is a rapidly evolving field where yesterday’s best practices may be obsolete today. Courts struggle to assess whether an expert’s methodology reflects current scientific understanding.

Strategy: Emphasize recent peer-reviewed publications, current industry certifications, and ongoing engagement with the AI research community.

Lack of Established Standards

Unlike fields with long-established methodologies (DNA analysis, accident reconstruction), AI lacks universally accepted standards for many practices.

Strategy: Point to emerging frameworks like NIST AI Risk Management Framework, ISO/IEC standards for AI, and IEEE ethical AI standards. While not universal, these provide evidentiary support for expert methodology.

Black Box Problem

Opposing counsel frequently challenge AI experts on the grounds that they cannot explain why an AI system made a particular decision.

Strategy: Distinguish between understanding how a model works (architecture, training, testing) and explaining individual predictions. Experts can reliably testify about the former even when the latter is genuinely unknowable.

Qualification Challenges

Defendants may argue that plaintiffs’ experts lack specific expertise in the particular AI system at issue.

Strategy: Focus on transferable expertise. An expert in deep learning for image classification can understand a medical imaging AI even without specific experience with that vendor’s product. The fundamental principles are the same.

Building a Daubert-Proof Expert Profile

#

To maximize chances of surviving a Daubert challenge:

1. Credential Documentation: Prepare comprehensive CV highlighting relevant education, publications, industry experience, and prior testimony
2. Methodology Statement: Draft clear statement of the methodology the expert will use, tied to established scientific principles
3. Literature Review: Document peer-reviewed literature supporting the expert’s opinions
4. Bias Assessment: Anticipate attacks on objectivity; document expert’s independence from parties
5. Prior Testimony: Review prior testimony to ensure consistency and identify potential impeachment material

Key Daubert Cases in AI Litigation

#

Favorable to AI Expert Admission:

• Lewis v. XYZ Corp. (illustrative): Court admitted machine learning expert’s testimony where methodology was based on “well-established statistical principles” even though specific application to AI was novel
• Courts increasingly recognize that AI expertise is sufficiently developed to satisfy Daubert, particularly for foundational concepts like bias testing and model validation

Challenging for AI Expert Admission:

• Courts have excluded experts who offered opinions beyond their expertise (e.g., computer scientist opining on medical causation)
• Experts who cannot explain their methodology in terms the court can evaluate risk exclusion

Finding and Vetting AI Experts

#

Where to Find AI Experts

#

Academic Institutions

University professors in computer science, statistics, and related fields are a primary source of AI expertise:

• Research the faculty at top AI programs (Stanford, MIT, CMU, Berkeley, etc.)
• Look for professors whose research focuses on the specific AI application at issue
• Consider adjunct faculty who combine academic credentials with industry experience

Advantages: Strong credentials, publication record, teaching experience that translates to clear testimony Disadvantages: May have limited industry experience, potential scheduling conflicts, some are reticent to do litigation work

Industry Practitioners

Current or former AI practitioners from tech companies offer real-world perspective:

• Chief AI Officers and AI team leaders
• Senior machine learning engineers
• AI product managers
• Data scientists from relevant industries

Advantages: Understand practical implementation challenges, can speak to industry norms Disadvantages: Potential conflicts of interest, may require employer permission, less experience testifying

Expert Witness Databases and Referral Services

Several services specialize in matching litigators with experts:

• TASA (Technical Advisory Service for Attorneys)
• Robson Forensic
• Expert Institute
• IMS Expert Services
• Specialized AI litigation consultants

Advantages: Pre-vetted experts with litigation experience, efficient matching Disadvantages: Quality varies, may face criticism as “professional witnesses”

Consulting Firms

Major consulting firms have AI practices that occasionally provide expert services:

• McKinsey QuantumBlack
• Deloitte AI Institute
• PwC AI practice
• Specialized AI consultancies

Advantages: Strong analytical methodology, extensive resources Disadvantages: Expensive, potential conflicts from consulting work

Vetting AI Experts

#

Technical Competence Assessment

Before engaging an expert, conduct thorough due diligence:

1. Publication Review: Read the expert’s key publications. Do they demonstrate relevant expertise? Are they cited by others?
2. Technical Interview: Conduct a substantive interview about the technical issues in your case. Can they explain complex concepts clearly?
3. Case-Specific Analysis: Present hypothetical scenarios from your case. Does their analysis align with your theory? Are they willing to engage critically?

Litigation Experience Assessment

Prior testimony experience significantly impacts expert effectiveness:

1. Testimony History: Review transcripts of prior depositions and trial testimony. Were they effective witnesses?
2. Daubert Challenges: Have they survived Daubert challenges? Were they ever excluded?
3. Reputation Check: Contact attorneys who have used or opposed them. What was their experience?

Conflict and Bias Assessment

Identify potential attacks on objectivity:

1. Financial Relationships: Any consulting, investment, or employment relationships with parties?
2. Academic Relationships: Any collaborative research or funding from parties?
3. Prior Positions: Have they previously taken positions inconsistent with opinions you need?
4. Ideological Bias: Are they known advocates for particular AI policy positions?

Red Flags to Watch For

#

• Overconfidence: Experts who claim certainty about inherently uncertain AI behaviors
• Advocacy: Experts who seem more interested in “winning” than objective analysis
• Scope Creep: Experts who want to opine outside their expertise
• Unavailability: Experts whose schedules cannot accommodate litigation demands
• Fee Disputes: Experts whose fee structures create incentives for prolonged engagement
• Past Problems: History of exclusion, sanctions, or ethical complaints

Deposition Considerations

#

Preparing Your AI Expert for Deposition

#

Technical Preparation

Ensure the expert can clearly explain:

1. Foundational Concepts: Basic AI/ML terminology, common architectures, training processes
2. Specific Opinions: The basis for each opinion, step by step
3. Limitations: What the expert cannot say based on available evidence
4. Alternative Explanations: Why alternative explanations are less likely

Litigation Preparation

Deposition testimony follows rules your expert may not understand:

1. Answer Only What’s Asked: Don’t volunteer information
2. “I Don’t Know” is Acceptable: Experts aren’t required to have opinions on everything
3. Document Basis: Be prepared to identify documents supporting each opinion
4. Avoid Absolutes: Use qualified language (“more likely than not”) rather than certainties

Mock Examination

Conduct at least one practice session covering:

• Qualification questions
• Technical background questions
• Questions about specific opinions
• Hostile cross-examination
• Hypothetical questions

Deposing the Opposing AI Expert

#

Qualification Challenges

Probe the expert’s qualifications for this specific case:

• What specific training do you have in [the AI technology at issue]?
• Have you ever worked with [this specific type of AI system]?
• What percentage of your professional work involves AI?
• When did you last publish peer-reviewed research on AI?

Methodology Challenges

Establish foundation for Daubert motion:

• Please describe, step by step, the methodology you used to reach your opinions
• What scientific literature supports that methodology?
• Has that methodology been peer-reviewed?
• What is the known error rate for that methodology?

Bias and Objectivity

Identify potential credibility attacks:

• What percentage of your income comes from expert witness work?
• Have you always testified for plaintiffs/defendants?
• Do you have any financial interest in AI companies?
• Have you ever declined an engagement because you couldn’t support the client’s position?

Substantive Challenges

Test the technical foundation:

• What data did you rely on to reach your conclusions?
• Did you independently verify that data?
• What alternative explanations did you consider?
• What would change your opinion?

Common Deposition Traps

#

The “Yes or No” Trap

Opposing counsel may demand simple yes/no answers to complex technical questions. Prepare your expert to explain when questions cannot be accurately answered with a simple yes or no.

The Hypothetical Question

Complex hypotheticals can lead experts into unfamiliar territory. Experts should clarify assumptions before answering and reserve the right to modify answers if assumptions change.

The Treatise Impeachment

Under Rule 803(18), experts can be impeached with statements from authoritative treatises. Identify key treatises in advance and prepare responses to potentially inconsistent passages.

The “Magic Words” Search

Opposing counsel may seek admissions that certain practices were “unreasonable” or “negligent.” Experts should stick to technical conclusions and avoid legal characterizations.

Working with Multiple Experts

#

Coordinating Expert Teams

#

Complex AI cases often require multiple experts:

• Technical AI expert
• Industry/domain expert
• Standard of care expert
• Damages expert

Coordination Challenges:

1. Consistency: Ensure experts’ opinions don’t contradict each other
2. Coverage: Identify gaps between experts’ coverage
3. Handoffs: Define where one expert’s analysis ends and another’s begins
4. Communication: Establish protocols for expert-to-expert communication (mindful of work product protection)

Expert Reports and Timing

#

Under Federal Rule 26(a)(2), expert reports must contain:

• Complete statement of all opinions and bases
• Data and information considered
• Exhibits to be used
• Qualifications and publications
• Prior testimony history
• Compensation information

Timing Considerations:

• Plaintiff’s experts typically report first
• Rebuttal experts address specific opinions
• Coordinate timing across expert team
• Build in time for expert review of each other’s reports

Cost Considerations

#

Typical AI Expert Fees

#

AI expert fees vary widely based on credentials and demand:

Additional Costs:

• Deposition appearance (often 1.5x-2x hourly rate)
• Trial testimony (often 2x+ hourly rate)
• Travel and accommodation
• Technical analysis tools and resources

Budgeting for AI Expert Work

#

Plan for significant expert investment in AI cases:

• Initial consultation and case evaluation: 10-20 hours
• Document review and analysis: 40-100+ hours
• Report preparation: 30-60 hours
• Deposition preparation and testimony: 20-40 hours
• Trial preparation and testimony: 40-80 hours

Total engagement: Often $50,000-$300,000+ for complex cases

Ethical Considerations

#

Expert Independence

#

Ethical rules require that experts form independent opinions based on their professional judgment. Attorneys should:

• Not pressure experts to reach predetermined conclusions
• Allow experts to acknowledge weaknesses
• Ensure experts have access to all relevant information

Disclosure Obligations

#

Both experts and attorneys have disclosure obligations:

• All materials considered by the expert (including draft reports in some jurisdictions)
• Communications with counsel (varies by jurisdiction)
• Financial arrangements
• Prior testimony

Confidentiality

#

Experts typically owe confidentiality obligations:

• Protecting work product
• Safeguarding proprietary information received in discovery
• Maintaining privilege where applicable

Frequently Asked Questions

#

What if no expert has specific experience with the exact AI system at issue?

#

This is common given AI’s rapid evolution. Focus on transferable expertise, understanding the fundamental principles of machine learning, model validation, and industry practices applies across specific implementations. Courts increasingly recognize that requiring exact system expertise would make AI litigation impossible.

Can a single expert cover both technical AI and industry standard of care issues?

#

Sometimes, but be cautious. Technical AI expertise and industry practice expertise are distinct. A computer scientist may understand how an AI works technically but lack knowledge of how similar organizations deploy such systems. Consider whether your case requires separate experts.

How do we handle trade secrets and proprietary algorithms in expert discovery?

#

Work with the court to establish appropriate protective orders. Consider tiered access where the expert can review confidential information under restrictions. Your expert can often render meaningful opinions based on inputs, outputs, and documentation even without full algorithmic transparency.

What’s the best approach when opposing counsel’s expert has superior credentials?

#

Focus on the specific opinions and methodology, not the credential comparison. An expert with lesser credentials who has done more thorough case-specific analysis may be more persuasive than a famous expert offering generic opinions.

Should we use a testifying expert or a consulting expert?

#

Many attorneys use both: a consulting expert who helps evaluate the case (protected by work product) and a separate testifying expert whose work is discoverable. This allows candid strategic advice from the consultant while presenting the testifying expert’s independent opinions.

How do we prepare for Daubert challenges to novel AI testimony?

#

Build the record proactively. Have your expert document their methodology in detail, cite supporting literature, explain how the methodology has been tested or validated, and connect their approach to established scientific principles even if the specific AI application is new.

What happens if our expert’s opinion changes during the case?

#

Address it transparently. Experts can legitimately modify opinions based on new information, that’s a sign of scientific integrity. Document the change, explain the reason, and consider whether supplemental reporting is required.

Can an AI system itself be used as evidence, rather than just expert testimony about it?

#

Yes, but with expert support. The AI system’s outputs can be evidence, but foundation testimony is typically needed to establish reliability. This may require expert testimony about the system’s accuracy, validation, and proper functioning.

Conclusion

#

AI expert witnesses are indispensable in modern technology litigation. As AI systems become more prevalent and consequential, the demand for qualified AI experts will only grow. By understanding the types of expertise needed, building a Daubert-proof expert profile, conducting thorough vetting, and preparing effectively for depositions, attorneys can maximize the impact of their expert witnesses.

The AI expert witness landscape is still maturing. Best practices will continue to evolve as courts gain experience with AI cases and as the AI profession develops clearer standards. Attorneys who invest in understanding both the technology and the experts who can explain it will be best positioned to serve their clients in this emerging area of practice.

This resource is updated regularly as AI expert witness practices evolve. Last updated: January 2025.