AI prompts for expert report review
Expert review often crosses source types: a report, reliance materials, prior reports, and testimony. Keep those sources distinct, compare stated opinions and foundations, and treat any claimed change or omission as a lead for human review.
General workflow orientation, not legal advice or a jurisdiction-specific procedure. AI can still omit, distort, or invent material.
A verification-first process
Label every source
Give each report, supplement, reliance document, and transcript a stable source label. Record its date, author, page system, and whether the document is complete.
Extract opinions before comparing them
List each stated opinion, qualification, basis, assumption, and cited material from its own source. Avoid merging similar language across documents.
Compare with source-specific coordinates
For every possible change, conflict, or new basis, cite the report section and page on one side and the transcript page-line or second report page on the other.
Turn findings into review questions
Use the comparison to identify passages counsel should examine. Do not present a model’s interpretation as a ruling on admissibility, credibility, or whether an opinion is legally “new.”
Cite each expert source in its native form
- For a report, include source label, section or heading, and page or Bates number.
- For testimony, include transcript label and page:line range.
- Place the two citations side by side when describing a possible inconsistency.
- Distinguish a direct quotation, a faithful paraphrase, and the reviewer’s inference.
Human verification checklist
- Each opinion and foundation is attributed to the correct source version.
- Quoted report language and transcript testimony match their cited locations.
- The comparison accounts for qualifications and surrounding context.
- Counsel independently evaluates disclosure, admissibility, and strategy questions.
Prompts for this record
Prompt libraryExpert Report vs. Deposition Audit
Audit an expert's deposition against their report: new opinions, abandoned opinions, changed bases, and undisclosed reliance materials — the record a motion to exclude depends on.
IME / CME Report Summarizer
Distill an IME or CME report: findings, concessions, the records the examiner says they reviewed — and the gap between that list and what actually exists.
Run these prompts on your own expert reports.
Ask your files opens the record in this browser and searches it with source cites. CasePrompts Pro (private beta) runs the full prompt on the whole file in the cloud, and accepts case files only after a Zero Data Retention agreement is in place.
Continue across the record
Before using a third-party model, review how data leaves the browser. For the prompt framework and its limits, read the CITE guide and editorial methodology.