By Bill Hartzer · Published · How this site is researched
Disclosure. The expert states at retention that the use of systems will be disclosed and the record produced on request, and does so when asked by retaining counsel, by an opposing party through proper process, or by the tribunal.
A commitment made before it costs anything
On the first day of an engagement the expert has no view, no draft and nothing to protect, so a promise to disclose system use and produce the record on request is neutral. Six months later, with a report nearly written and counsel's preferences known, the same promise reads as a concession, and it will read that way to a jury if it is made under pressure. That is why the book settles this clause and Clause 6 in the engagement letter before any material arrives.
The reported matters point the same way. Experts have kept their opinions after errors were found and after acknowledging extensive tool use. The worst outcomes came when a witness could not explain the work, or told a story that later changed. An original lapse is survivable. Concealing it is not.
How much the report itself says
The clause does not require cataloguing every use in the report. What the report says scales with reliance. A tool used only to locate sources, which the expert then obtained and read, needs one sentence describing that kind of use. Reliance on a tool's analysis calls for a description of the work. When what a tool produced is itself evidence in the case, the full exchanges belong in the report. Whatever the report says, the contemporaneous log carries the whole account.
"On request" has a defined meaning: retaining counsel, an opposing party through proper process, or the tribunal. A discovery request is never answered directly. It goes to retaining counsel, who decides what is responsive, protected and produced.
Candor and denial in the record
In Lnu v. Blanche (Ninth Circuit suspension), two attorneys whose immigration briefs contained fabricated cases first called the problems typographical and denied at oral argument that AI was involved. The published order imposed $2,500 on each, a six-month suspension from practice before the court and a two-year certification requirement. The panel placed the breach precisely: "the rules are not violated at the point of research and drafting, but at the point of signing and filing." The entry identifies the denial as what separated this result from a fine.
In re Prince Global Holdings (Sullivan & Cromwell) shows the other course. A law firm wrote to the bankruptcy court identifying the errors in an emergency motion, including AI hallucinations, in an attached schedule and filed a corrected motion with a redline the same day. No sanction had been reported as of September 2026. Disclosure did not cure the failure to verify, which the firm acknowledged, but it gave the court a complete account. In Villanueva v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, by contrast, an expert's ChatGPT use surfaced only at deposition, after a subpoena for everything he had considered.
Where a forum asks for more
The Standard sets a floor, not a ceiling. Some courts require more, and earlier. The NSW Supreme Court Practice Note SC Gen 23 bars generative AI in preparing an expert report without prior leave, and where leave is granted requires the report to identify the parts so prepared and to annex a record of how the tool was used. That is stricter than the Standard, and an expert in that court meets the practice note first. Certification rules and judges' standing orders are collected in the guide to AI disclosure and certification rules. Retaining counsel identifies which apply in a given matter.
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 Civil Procedure 26 and Federal Rule of Evidence 702 set the disclosure and reliability questions that an expert's AI use will be asked about. 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 8
32 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
- Villanueva v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department “Clause 8 of the Standard, disclosure, is the first clause engaged.”
- Watson Grinding explosion trial (3M expert) “Clause 8, disclosure, applies because the use came to light through discovery rather than from the report itself.”
- Conservation Law Foundation v. Shell (expert AI prompts) “Clause 8, disclosure, is also engaged.”
- Keratoconus Entitlement Review, 2026 CanLII 107034 “Clause 8, disclosure, is also engaged, since nothing in the decision indicates that the letter disclosed any AI use.”
- NSW Supreme Court Practice Note SC Gen 23 “The disclosure requirement is Clause 8 in its strictest form, because disclosure is made to the court in advance and not only on request.”
- Kohls v. Ellison “The court's suggestion that counsel ask witnesses about AI use points toward Clause 8, disclosure, and Clause 7, contemporaneous record, since an expert who has logged each use can answer that question precisely.”
- Matter of Weber “Clause 8, disclosure, is the subject of the requirement the court announced for AI-generated evidence offered in that court.”
Fabricated citations and facts in filings
- Zhejiang Dingli Machinery Co. v. United States “Clause 7, contemporaneous record, and Clause 8, disclosure, describe what the court asked for, an account of who or what wrote each passage.”
- Henry v. Long Island University “Clause 8, disclosure, is engaged by what came after.”
- 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 response engaged Clause 8 (disclosure) in a way the record shows plainly.”
- Whiting v. City of Athens “Clause 7, contemporaneous record, and Clause 8, disclosure, explain why the court's questions mattered.”
- Fletcher v. Experian (Fifth Circuit sanction) “Responding to the court's inquiry in a way the court found not forthcoming engaged Clause 8, disclosure.”
- Kjoller v. Superior Court (Nevada County DA) “The prosecutorial setting adds weight to Clause 8 (disclosure) and Clause 7 (contemporaneous record).”
- Ayinde v Haringey and Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank “Ayinde also engaged Clause 8 (disclosure) in its broader sense.”
AI-generated and altered evidence
- TRAX International Corp. v. United States “Clause 8 of the Standard, disclosure, is the first clause TRAX engages: AI outputs made during the procurement surfaced only after the protester pressed for them, and the government offered what the court called "a shifting and, at times, inaccurate account" of who saw them.”
- Fry v. Fry (Claude upload and sealing) “The certification engages Clause 7, contemporaneous record, and Clause 8, disclosure, together.”
- United States v. Heppner “It also bears on Clause 7, contemporaneous record, and Clause 8, disclosure.”
Judges, courts and AI
- 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).”
- Colombia: Cartagena ChatGPT ruling and Sentencia T-323/24 “His disclosure met Clause 8, and it is the reason the use could be reviewed at all.”
- Snell v. United Specialty Insurance (Judge Newsom) “These are examples of use that met Clause 8 of the Expert Record Standard, disclosure, and Clause 7, contemporaneous record.”
AI inside the courtroom
- State v. Horcasitas (Pelkey AI victim impact statement) “A tribunal weighing such a statement, and counsel responding to it, can check only the script and the family's authorship of it, which is why advance disclosure of the form, Clause 8, matters to the other side.”
- Dewald AI avatar argument (N.Y. App. Div., 1st Dept.) “The matter engages disclosure, Clause 8 of the Expert Record Standard.”
- Arizona Supreme Court AI news reporters “Disclosure, Clause 8, is what separates this use from the avatar that appeared unannounced before the New York Appellate Division about 2 weeks after the release.”
Rules, orders and guidance
- California SB 574 (Statutes of 2026, chapter 858) “The duty to disclose AI use to the court for every submitted document corresponds to Clause 8, disclosure, and is broader than the Standard's version, which requires disclosure at retention and on request.”
- Cherokee County Superior Court AI standing order “Naming the tool in the filing corresponds to Clause 8 of the Standard, disclosure.”
- Draft Regulations for Use of AI in Courts, 2026 “Regulation 43(4) tracks Clause 8 of the Standard, disclosure, and Clause 7, contemporaneous record, closely: a court can only be told which system was used, how far, and how its output was verified if someone kept that record while the work was done.”
- New York courts: interim AI policy and Part 161 “Clause 8 directs the expert to the order and engagement that govern the particular case.”
- Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707 “The revised draft's notice provision points in the same direction as Clause 8: the opposing party learns that AI was used before trial.”
- Civil Justice Council consultation on AI in court documents “The expert-report proposal corresponds to Clause 8 of the Standard, disclosure.”
- ABA Formal Opinion 512 “Its reference to local rules corresponds to Clause 8, disclosure where rules or orders require it.”
- Judge Starr's AI certificate and the Fifth Circuit rule “For an expert, the lesson is Clause 8, disclosure.”