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Evidence has been the go-to guide for federal judges seeking to sort out scientific testimony, and a major source of non-precedential authority for both sides when arguing motions under Fed.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.
Today’s guest post is by Reed Smith‘s Jamie Lanphear. Like Bexis, she follows tech issues as they apply to product liability litigation. In this post she discusses a pro-plaintiff piece of legislation recently introduced in Congress that would overturn the current majority rule that electronic data is not considered a “product” for purposes
Almost ten years ago Bexis argued that the Federal Rules were technologically out-of-date and proposed a number of topics that would benefit from rules-based codification. One of those topics involved machine learning – specifically use of predictive coding in ediscovery.
That didn’t go anywhere, but on May 2, 2025, the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules proposed language for a new rule – Fed. R. Evid. 707 – addressed to the impact of artificial-intelligence-generated evidence in the courtroom. Here’s the proposed language:
Rule 707. Machine-Generated Evidence
When machine-generated evidence is offered without an expert witness and would be subject to Rule 702 if testified to by a witness, the court may admit the evidence only it if satisfies the requirements of Rule 702 (a)-(d). This rule does not apply to the output of basic scientific instruments.
Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, Agenda Book, at Appendix B, page 75 of 486 (June 10, 2025). This proposal is the product of three years of research and investigation. Id.
Continue Reading Federal Judicial Conference Evidence Rules Committee Releases Possible New Rule Pertaining to Artificial Intelligence