A8 · Litigation
Expert Witness & Litigation Support
Explaining to a court what an AI system does, what reasonable deployment practice looks like, and whether the standard was met.
Someone has to explain the system to the court
AI litigation is arriving on several fronts at once: employment class actions over screening tools, consumer claims over automated decisions, contract disputes over AI performance that did not materialise, and D&O claims over what was disclosed and when.
Each of those cases turns on questions a court cannot answer without help. What did the system actually do? What would a reasonable deployer have done? Was the documentation what a competent operator would have kept? Was the human review a control, or a signature?
Answering those questions credibly requires someone who has built and operated these systems in regulated production environments, not someone who has read about them. It also requires the discipline to say only what the evidence supports — which is what survives cross-examination and a Daubert challenge.
What you get
-
Consulting expert — non-testifying
Helping counsel understand the technology, frame discovery requests, identify what to ask for and what the answers mean, and review the opposing expert's report. Work product is generally privileged.
-
Testifying expert
Written report, deposition and trial testimony on AI system design, deployment standards, governance practice and reasonable care. Opinions stated only to the extent the record supports them.
-
Litigation readiness — for companies
What a litigation hold means when the evidence is a model. Preservation of model artefacts, training data, prompts, logs and configuration, and the retention decisions that need making before a dispute rather than after.
Scope
Fixed on both sides. Anything outside it is a separate engagement, quoted separately.
Included
- Conflicts check before any substantive discussion
- Technology briefing for the trial team
- Discovery request framing and review
- Rebuttal analysis of opposing expert reports
- Written report to the applicable standard
- Deposition and trial testimony
- Evidence preservation guidance for AI systems
Not included
- Legal advice or legal opinions — counsel's role, not the expert's
- Any opinion the evidence does not support
- Matters adjacent to a current NEUBoard advisory client
- Contingent or outcome-dependent fee arrangements
- Forensic data recovery or e-discovery processing
- Damages quantification
How it runs
| First contact | Conflicts check against the advisory client log before any case facts are discussed. If there is a conflict, the matter is declined at this point. |
|---|---|
| Engagement | Retainer and engagement letter. Consulting role by default; testifying designation is a separate, later decision. |
| Discovery | Technology briefing for the team, discovery request framing, document and code review as the record develops. |
| Report | Written report to the applicable standard, with the basis for each opinion stated. |
| Testimony | Deposition and, if the matter reaches it, trial. |
Common questions
Why is the rate not published?
Rates are sent on request with the engagement letter. Fees are hourly, with a retainer on engagement, and differ between consulting, report preparation and testimony.
How are conflicts handled?
Every NEUBoard advisory client is logged, and the log is checked before any case facts are discussed. Matters adjacent to a current or recent advisory client are declined. This is checked first because it cannot be unwound later.
Do you work for plaintiffs as well as defendants?
Yes. An expert who only ever appears on one side invites the obvious question on cross. The analysis does not change with the caption.
What is the prior testimony record?
Stated in full in the curriculum vitae, including the list of cases in which testimony was given in the previous four years, as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) requires. It is provided on request so that counsel can assess it before making contact.
Can you consult on a matter and later testify?
Sometimes, but it is a decision to make deliberately and early. Moving a consulting expert to a testifying role can expose work that was previously protected. Counsel should raise it at engagement, not at designation.
Expert services are provided in an individual capacity. Nothing here is legal advice and no attorney–client relationship is created by an enquiry. Engagement is subject to a conflicts check; no case facts should be sent before that check is complete. Full credentials, publications and the prior testimony record are set out in a curriculum vitae provided on request.
Start with a conflicts check
Send the case caption and the parties. No case facts until the check clears.