By Bill Hartzer · Published · How this site is researched
Independent authority. Nothing enters the report on the authority of a system. Every citation, figure, date, quotation, specification, and characterization of a record is confirmed against a source that exists independently of the system, and the expert can identify that source.
Instrument or source
The book's central distinction is between an instrument, which extends an expert's reach over material that can still be inspected, and a source, which supplies content on someone else's authority. Generative tools present as the first and behave as the second. This clause resolves the difficulty with one rule: each checkable statement in the report, from a page reference to a description of what a record says, must rest on something that exists apart from the tool, and the expert must be able to say what that is.
The rule governs authority, not origin. If a model suggests a proposition and the expert then reads the primary source and finds it supported, the assertion rests on the source. How the expert came to look there is, in the book's word, biography. The hazard lies in the small conveniences nobody logs: reformatting a reference, converting units, confirming a date, summarizing a document only skimmed.
Apparatus and analysis in the record
In Kohls v. Ellison, an expert declaration drafted with GPT-4o contained three defective citations: two to articles that do not exist and one naming the wrong authors. The federal court did not consider the declaration and imposed no sanctions. In In re Valsartan MDL (Dr. William Sawyer), a Special Master denied a motion to exclude despite citations to nonexistent sources, leaving the defect to cross-examination and possible costs, and found the methodology otherwise reliable. The outcomes differ.
LeDoux v. Outliers, Inc. shows the problem arriving from counsel. A lawyer generated a citation table with AI and supplied it to two experts as an appendix; neither caught its errors before signing. Counsel was personally sanctioned $3,000 under Rule 11. Those reports had already been struck on other grounds, and a third expert whose own report contained fabricated citations was excluded before the case was dismissed. In Biton v. The National Insurance Institute, an Israeli labor court allowed a claimant to put ChatGPT-sourced research to a court-appointed expert only if the actual articles were attached, not the system's summaries of them.
Running the check as a defined pass
Vigilance cannot be described under oath; a procedure can. After the report is complete and before it is served, and again after any material revision, every checkable assertion goes onto a list in one of six categories: citations, quotations, numbers, dates, locators (page, Bates and section references) and technical specifications. Each row is checked against the source itself, not against notes or memory, and receives one of four dispositions: verified, corrected, removed or limited. The list is kept in the engagement folder. The verification checklist sets the categories out in full.
Two cases deserve a settled answer. Material supplied by counsel, such as a chronology or citation table, is verified or expressly attributed; there is no third option. Summaries produced by software the expert cannot avoid, such as a review platform's built-in assistant, are treated as pointers, and the underlying document is read.
What independent authority does not demand
The clause does not prohibit using these tools or keeping text they suggested. It does not treat a model's agreement as corroboration either: as the entry on Ferlito v. Harbor Freight Tools USA observes, a confirming chat answer adds no independent weight, because the system is not an independent source. And a clean pass is necessary without being sufficient. A report shaped by a leading question can survive every check, which is why Clause 1 operates months earlier.
The rules it sits beside
The Standard does not restate any court rule and does not depend on one. In United States federal courts, Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 both turn on the facts and data an opinion rests on, and Rule 26(a)(2)(B) governs what the report must state about them, which is where an unverified citation surfaces. Other systems ask the same questions in their own terms, and the matters below include tribunals in several of them.
Matters in the record that engaged Clause 3
74 of the 103 matters in AI in the Courtroom engaged this clause. Each is listed with the sentence from its entry that says how. The mapping describes conduct, not blame, and each entry sets out the facts it rests on.
Expert witnesses and AI
- Avergil v. Yaakov “Clause 3 of the Standard, independent authority, is the clause most directly engaged.”
- Villanueva v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department “Clause 3, independent authority, explains why the case summaries were ordered produced.”
- Bard Port Catheter MDL (El-Ghannam ChatGPT challenge) “Clause 3, independent authority, is the substantive obligation the testimony describes.”
- LeDoux v. Outliers, Inc. “This matter illustrates Clause 3, independent authority, from an uncomfortable angle.”
- Keratoconus Entitlement Review, 2026 CanLII 107034 “Clause 3, independent authority, follows: the letter attributed a position to a guideline of the very agency whose decision was under review, and the guideline did not exist.”
- Riddle Aggregates (Tax Court rebuttal expert) “The conduct engaged Clause 3 of the Standard, independent authority.”
- Social Media MDL (Osborne AI citation tool) “The conduct engaged Clause 3 of the Standard, independent authority.”
- Biton v. The National Insurance Institute “The order is Clause 3, independent authority, expressed as a procedural requirement.”
- In re Valsartan MDL (Dr. William Sawyer) “The conduct engaged Clause 3, independent authority.”
- Concord Music Group v. Anthropic (Chen declaration) “The matter engaged Clause 3, independent authority, in a narrow form.”
- Ferlito v. Harbor Freight Tools USA “A confirming answer from a chat system adds no independent weight under Clause 3, because the system is not an independent source.”
- Kohls v. Ellison “The conduct engaged Clause 3, independent authority.”
- In re Celsius Network LLC (Faraj report) “It also engaged Clause 3, independent authority, and Clause 5, reproducible analysis.”
Fabricated citations and facts in filings
- Deepak Raheja v. Omkara Assets Reconstruction “Clause 3, independent authority, applies to each judgment placed before the court, because a compilation adopts its contents as authority.”
- Kid International v. City National Bank of Florida “Clause 3 of the Standard, independent authority, is the clause Kid International engages most directly: authorities supplied by the client and produced with an AI tool went into the brief without being confirmed against the decisions themselves.”
- Aguilar v. The Crawford Group, Inc. “Clause 3 of the Standard, independent authority, is engaged by every miscited case.”
- Cervantes v. Bianco (Supreme Court of California) “The conduct engages Clause 3 of the Standard, independent authority, in the form most often missed.”
- Henry v. Long Island University “Clause 3 of the Standard, independent authority, is engaged by each citation.”
- Assemblies of God Gospel Church v. Registrar of Societies “Clause 3 of the Standard, independent authority, is the clause the ruling turned on.”
- Douglas v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. “The conduct engages Clause 3 of the Standard, independent authority.”
- SRA v Kumar (Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal) “The conduct engages Clause 3 of the Standard, independent authority.”
- State v. Sandoval (Aarons sanction) “The conduct engaged Clause 3 of the Expert Record Standard (independent authority).”
- Daghra v. Hinkley (government counsel) “The conduct engaged Clause 3 of the Standard, independent authority, and it engaged the simplest form of it.”
- In re Rosslyn2016 (a legal research tool is still a tool) “The domain branding is not a substitute for Clause 3 of the Standard, independent authority, which requires every citation, figure and characterization to be confirmed against a source that exists independently of the system.”
- Lnu v. Blanche (Ninth Circuit suspension) “The conduct engaged Clause 3 of the Standard, independent authority, and Clause 8, disclosure.”
- In re Prince Global Holdings (Sullivan & Cromwell) “The conduct engaged Clause 3 of the Expert Record Standard (independent authority) and Clause 4 (checkability before adoption).”
- Obi v. Cook County “The Expert Record Standard is written for professionals, but its Clause 3 (independent authority) describes the same duty Rule 11 places on every signer.”
- Whiting v. City of Athens “Clause 3 of the Standard, independent authority, is the first clause Whiting v.”
- Fletcher v. Experian (Fifth Circuit sanction) “Using the tool without verification engaged Clause 3 of the Standard, independent authority.”
- Amarsingh v. Frontier Airlines (Tenth Circuit) “The conduct engaged Clause 3 of the Standard, independent authority, and Clause 4, checkability before adoption.”
- Clinco v. Commissioner “Clause 3, independent authority, is the whole of it.”
- Kjoller v. Superior Court (Nevada County DA) “The conduct engaged Clause 3 of the Expert Record Standard (independent authority).”
- Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P. “The conduct engaged Clause 3 of the Expert Record Standard (independent authority).”
- Victorian murder trial submissions (Nathwani KC) “The conduct engaged Clause 3 of the Expert Record Standard (independent authority).”
- Johnson v. Dunn (Butler Snow) “The conduct engaged Clause 3 of the Expert Record Standard (independent authority).”
- Ayinde v Haringey and Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank “Both cases engaged Clause 3 of the Expert Record Standard (independent authority).”
- Mata v. Avianca, Inc. “The conduct engaged Clause 3 of the Expert Record Standard (independent authority).”
AI-generated and altered evidence
- Adams v. Anderson (Kentucky Court of Appeals) “For an expert asked to authenticate an image or document, that is the instructive part: the most persuasive test was an independent source that should have corroborated the item and did not, the approach Clause 3, independent authority, requires for anything an expert relies on.”
- Burnley v. Valentin
- Matter of M.S. (M.H.)
- Florida v. Schinault (ChatGPT image false report)
- Mendones v. Cushman & Wakefield
- Maryland v. Darien (Pikesville High deepfake audio)
- State of Washington v. Puloka
- Huang v. Tesla
Judges, courts and AI
- Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya v. Union of India “The conduct engages Clause 3 of the Standard, independent authority.”
- Faiz Enterprise v. State Tax Officer “The conduct engages Clause 3 of the Standard, independent authority, at its most basic: a citation was adopted without confirming that the case exists.”
- FJL v TGO (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg) “The conduct engages Clause 3 of the Standard, independent authority, in the hands of a decision-maker.”
- EPFO v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax “Clause 3, independent authority, completes the analysis, because a decision that characterizes a precedent must rest on the precedent itself.”
- Molawa v. Matjhabeng Local Municipality “Clause 3 of the Standard, independent authority, is the clause the Molawa ruling engaged.”
- Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. “That makes it a direct instance of Clause 3 of the Expert Record Standard, independent authority, in the hands of a decision-maker.”
- Henry County Schools v. Grant (party-drafted order) “That reliance is what Clause 3, independent authority, is meant to make safe.”
- H.C. v. Contreras “Clause 3, independent authority, applies to the brief, which cited a case no one appears to have opened.”
- Payne v. State “Two professionals are involved, and the conduct engaged Clause 3 of the Expert Record Standard for each.”
- ARIHQ v. Santé Québec, 2026 QCCS 1360 “Clause 3, independent authority, and clause 7, contemporaneous record, complete the picture.”
- In re Domestic Partnership of Torres Campos and Munoz “Clause 3 of the Standard, independent authority, is the clause Torres Campos engages most directly.”
- Judge Wheeler (Oklahoma) fabricated citations “The conduct engaged Clause 3 of the Standard, independent authority, in the setting where the failure carries furthest.”
- Senate Judiciary inquiry into judges' AI use “It addresses non-delegation of decisions (Clause 2), independent verification of output (Clause 3) and consideration of disclosure (Clause 8).”
- In re CorMedix Securities Litigation (Judge Neals) “The errors are the kind Clause 3 of the Expert Record Standard is written to prevent: case outcomes and quotations that entered the work on the authority of a chat system and were not confirmed against the decisions themselves.”
- Jackson Federation of Teachers v. Fitch (Judge Wingate) “That engaged Clause 2 of the Expert Record Standard, non-delegation, and Clause 3, independent authority.”
- Shahid v. Esaam “The conduct engaged Clause 3 of the Expert Record Standard, independent authority.”
- Colombia: Cartagena ChatGPT ruling and Sentencia T-323/24 “The Court's finding that transparency and accountability were incomplete points to Clause 7, a contemporaneous record, and to Clause 3.”
AI inside the courtroom
- Williams v. State (Ind. Ct. App.) AI-assisted transcript “That is Clause 4 of the Expert Record Standard, checkability before adoption, and Clause 3, independent authority: the words attributed to a speaker should be confirmed against the audio, not accepted on the system's rendering.”
- State v. Boles juror ChatGPT research (Paulding County, Ga.) “A chatbot's answer about a pending case is information from an unknown source that neither party can examine, which is the concern behind independent authority, Clause 3.”
Rules, orders and guidance
- California SB 574 (Statutes of 2026, chapter 858) “The duties to verify and correct output, and the ban on unverified citations, correspond to Clause 3, independent authority.”
- Tenth Circuit proposed Rule 46.5(B)(4) on generative AI “The proposed text is close to Clause 3 of the Standard, independent authority, written as a court rule: every authority, quotation and citation verified by a human, independently of the system.”
- Cherokee County Superior Court AI standing order “The certification that each citation exists and supports its proposition is Clause 3, independent authority.”
- Connecticut Practice Book Section 4-9 (Generative AI) “Section 4-9(b) is Clause 3 of the Standard, independent authority, written as a court rule and extended to evidence.”
- Draft Regulations for Use of AI in Courts, 2026 “Regulation 43(6), which forecloses the AI output as a defense, is the same principle as Clause 3, independent authority, stated as a rule of responsibility.”
- New York courts: interim AI policy and Part 161 “Part 161's model rule corresponds to Clause 3, independent authority: the person who signs checks that every authority exists.”
- AI Judicial Guidance, England and Wales (October 2025)
- California Rule of Court 10.430 and Standard 10.80
- ABA Formal Opinion 512 “The opinion's verification passage corresponds to Clause 3 of the Standard, independent authority, and Clause 4, checkability before adoption.”
- Judge Starr's AI certificate and the Fifth Circuit rule “Both measures address Clause 3 of the Standard, independent authority.”
Clause 2: Non-delegation · All eight clauses · Clause 4: Checkability before adoption