Your AI Prompts Just Became Evidence: What Personal Injury Lawyers Need to Know

Artificial intelligence is no longer a futuristic concept in the legal profession; it is becoming part of everyday practice. From reviewing medical records and organizing large volumes of documents to helping experts analyze complex information, AI tools are allowing attorneys and experts to work more efficiently than ever before. However, a recent federal court decision serves as an important reminder that the use of AI in litigation may come with new discovery considerations. In certain circumstances, the prompts entered into an AI system may themselves become subject to scrutiny.

In Conservation Law Foundation Inc. v. Shell Oil Products US et al., a federal court ordered the production of AI prompts used by an expert witness while preparing an expert report. The court found that the prompts formed part of the expert’s methodology and were therefore discoverable under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Although the case did not arise in the context of a personal injury claim, the decision has implications that personal injury practitioners should not ignore.

Expert testimony often serves as the backbone of a personal injury case. Medical experts, life-care planners, vocational rehabilitation specialists, economists, and other professionals are increasingly using AI tools to review records, identify patterns, summarize information, and assist with analysis. While these tools can be valuable in managing large amounts of information, their use may also invite additional questions when an expert’s opinions are challenged.

The ruling suggests that when AI contributes to an expert’s analysis, opposing counsel may seek to look beyond the expert’s final report and examine the process used to reach those conclusions. That process could include the instructions given to the AI system, the assumptions embedded within those prompts, and the outputs generated in response.

For example, a party may argue that certain prompts directed the AI toward a particular outcome, omitted important facts, or framed issues in a way that influenced the expert’s conclusions. As a result, future cross-examinations may not focus solely on what an expert concluded, but also on how AI was used in reaching those conclusions.

For plaintiff firms and litigation practices generally, the decision highlights several practical considerations. Attorneys who engage expert witnesses may want to discuss AI usage at the outset of an engagement. Experts may also wish to maintain records of prompts, outputs, and the AI platforms used during their analysis, particularly where AI-assisted work contributes to opinions that may later be examined during discovery.

Importantly, this decision does not mean that every use of AI by an attorney is automatically discoverable. Courts have long permitted broad discovery into the basis of expert opinions, and the ruling appears to be grounded in that well-established principle. The decision is therefore more likely to affect AI use by experts whose opinions will be presented at trial than routine attorney activities such as legal research, brainstorming, case strategy discussions, or preliminary drafting.

The emerging message is that AI interactions may become part of the evidentiary process when they play a role in shaping testimony or expert conclusions. As AI becomes increasingly integrated into litigation workflows, courts will continue to grapple with questions surrounding transparency, reliability, and discoverability.

For personal injury attorneys, the safest approach is to assume that AI-assisted expert work could someday be examined by opposing counsel. Establishing thoughtful protocols, understanding how experts are using AI, and maintaining appropriate documentation can help firms take advantage of new technology while reducing the risk of unexpected discovery disputes.

The legal profession is entering a new era in which not only expert opinions, but potentially the digital path used to develop them, may become part of the litigation record. As courts continue to define the boundaries of AI-related discovery, lawyers who stay informed and proactive will be best positioned to navigate this rapidly evolving landscape.