Extract from David Glusman’s article “Artificial Intelligence in Litigation: A Tool, Not a Witness”
Artificial intelligence is no longer a future issue in litigation. It is already embedded—sometimes quietly, sometimes explicitly—in document review, damages analysis, expert modeling and case assessment. As its use expands, courts and practitioners are increasingly focused on a practical question: how artificial intelligence fits within existing evidentiary, ethical and professional frameworks.
So far, the answer has been evolutionary rather than disruptive. Courts have shown little inclination to treat AI as something that displaces settled legal standards. Instead, judges appear to be applying familiar principles—reliability, relevance, transparency and professional judgment—to AI‑assisted work, including expert testimony.
AI as an Analytic Tool, Not an Opinion Source
Experts have relied on technology for decades. Statistical software, regression tools, valuation models and large‑scale databases are routine components of forensic accounting and damages analyses. Artificial intelligence belongs in that lineage, but with important distinctions.
