Bexis recently attended the Spring Conference of the Product Liability Advisory Council (“PLAC”). PLAC meetings are usually good for new blogpost ideas, and this one was no exception. Today’s idea comes from an unusual source, though – the final day’s ethics presentation. That presentation was about artificial intelligence, mostly in the mass tort context. One
Today’s guest post is another tech-related discussion from Reed Smith‘s Jamie Lanphear. Given the increasing ubiquity of artificial intelligence (“AI”) in legal practice, the notion of AI prompts and output becoming yet another front in the never-ending ediscovery wars is concerning. Here are Jamie’s latest thoughts on the latest pertinent caselaw in this
Artificial intelligence isn’t going anywhere. Experts use it. Opposing counsel use it. Clients use it – and want their lawyers to use it too. It is becoming an increasingly standard legal research, drafting, and case strategy tool. But as a couple of our recent posts (here and here) have pointed out—AI is far
Today’s guest post is by Reed Smith‘s Jamie Lanphear. She has long been interested in tech issues, and particularly in how they might intersect with product liability. This post examines product liability implications of using artificial intelligence (“AI”) for medical purposes. It’s a fascinating subject, and as always our guest posters deserve 100%
This database tracks legal decisions in cases where generative AI produced hallucinated content – typically fake citations, but also other types of AI-generated arguments. . . . While seeking to be exhaustive (972 cases identified so far), it is
At the recent ACI Drug and Medical Device annual conference, Bexis created something of a stir by broaching the subject of litigation discovery into the “prompts” that are typically used to create output from generative artificial intelligence. A fair number of the attendees apparently had not considered that possibility. Well, it’s already being done, and
Not quite three years ago, we co-authored a chapter in a Digital Health guide put out by International Comparative Legal Guides. It bore the pithy title “Predicting Risk and Examining the Intersection of Traditional Principles of Product Liability Laws with Digital Health.” We continue to tinker with the principles of product liability law
Since it was published in 2011, the third edition of the Federal Judicial Center’s Reference Manual for Scientific Evidence has been the go-to guide for federal judges seeking to sort out scientific testimony, and a major source of non-precedential authority for both sides when arguing motions under Fed. R. Evid. 702. 2011, however, was fifteen
This “just desserts” story caught our eyes earlier this year – a hot-shot expert witness, on artificial intelligence, no less, got caught with his own hand in the AI cookie jar. As a result, his credibility was destroyed, and his testimony was excluded. The litigation leading to Kohls v. Ellison, 2025 WL 66514 (D.