Disclosing AI use as a physician expert: practice and a template
Answer in brief: tell retaining counsel first, in writing, before any upload. Then let a short factual statement in the report say what AI did and what you checked. Federal Rule 26 doesn't require a software list, but 2026 rulings treat AI content you consulted as material the other side can get, so silence buys you nothing.
Limits: We read every rule, ruling and product page on the date shown and did not test any product with patient records. Court summaries here are not legal advice; how your court treats AI use depends on the jurisdiction and the judge, so ask retaining counsel.
What Rule 26 asks a retained expert to disclose
A retained expert's report must be "prepared and signed by the witness" and contain 6 things (FRCP 26, LII, read 2026-11-12). Here is where AI touches each.
| Rule 26(a)(2)(B) | What it requires | Where AI touches it |
|---|---|---|
| (i) | All opinions, and the basis and reasons for them | The reasons must be yours. AI-written reasoning is the core Kohls and 3M risk. |
| (ii) | The facts or data considered | A chronology or AI summary you consulted can count; Villanueva held ChatGPT case summaries were facts or data |
| (iii) | Exhibits used to summarize or support the opinions | An AI-built timeline you attach is an exhibit; check every entry on it |
| (iv) | Qualifications, with publications from the previous 10 years | No AI issue, but don't let a tool write your CV summary |
| (v) | Cases with trial or deposition testimony in the previous 4 years | No AI issue |
| (vi) | Compensation | If a tool's cost is billed to the case, it shows up here or in your invoices |
2 protections matter. Rule 26(b)(4)(B) protects drafts of the report "regardless of the form in which the draft is recorded." Rule 26(b)(4)(C) protects communications with retaining counsel, except about compensation, facts or data counsel gave you and you considered, and assumptions counsel gave you and you relied on. Neither one names AI. That gap is why the 2026 rulings split.
The 2026 split on expert prompts
| Material | CLF v. Shell (D. Conn., 2026-05-18) | Villanueva (D. Nev., 2026-09-29) |
|---|---|---|
| Prompts used to select or cull documents | Producible: part of the expert's methodology | Not at issue |
| Prompts and questions to the chatbot | Producible in that context | Protected: questions are not facts or data, and they reveal mental impressions |
| AI-generated summaries the expert consulted | Not separately addressed | Producible as facts or data considered |
| AI used to draft the report | Not separately addressed | Protected as a draft under Rule 26(b)(4)(B) |
| AI used to prepare for deposition | Not separately addressed | Protected as trial preparation |
| Generic Rule 29 stipulation on expert notes and drafts | Not clear enough to cover AI prompts | Not at issue |
Sources: eDiscovery Today on CLF v. Shell and EDRM on Villanueva, both read 2026-11-12. Neither is an appellate ruling, and your court may go either way.
The practical reading for a physician: material that fed your opinion (summaries, chronologies, search results you relied on) is likely producible. Material that shows how you thought (questions, drafts, prep) may be protected, but 1 court has already ordered prompts produced. Keep both kinds clean.
Disclose to whom, in what order
- Retaining counsel, before you start. Name the tools, the plans and whether each is under a BAA. Ask whether the protective order allows a third-party processor to hold the records.
- The engagement letter. Bracewell's 2026-09-21 Q&A recommends letters that name allowed tools, require counsel's approval, preserve prompts and outputs, and require the expert to verify output (bracewell.com, read 2026-11-12). If counsel doesn't raise it, you can.
- Any Rule 29 stipulation. CLF v. Shell shows a stipulation must name AI prompts and outputs to cover them. That is counsel's call, but you can point it out.
- The report. A short statement of what AI did and didn't do, using the template below.
- The deposition. Answers that match the report and your log. See the deposition page.
Copyable disclosure paragraph for your report
Edit the bracketed parts, delete any line that isn't true, and agree the final wording with retaining counsel. It is written for a federal Rule 26 report; adapt it for your court's form.
Use of software, including artificial intelligence In preparing this report I used the following software tools: 1. [Tool name], under a business associate agreement, to remove duplicate pages, sort the records by provider and date, and produce a chronology in which each entry cites the record page it came from. I reviewed the records listed in Section [X]. For every fact on which my opinions rely, I checked the chronology entry against the cited page of the original record. 2. [Literature tool], to search the published literature. I read in full every publication I cite in this report. No publication is cited on the strength of a software summary. I did not use artificial intelligence to form my opinions, to write the reasoning that supports them, or to perform any calculation in this report. The opinions, their bases and their wording are my own, and I am responsible for every statement in this report. My records of these tools' use (dates, tasks and checks performed) are available through counsel.
Why this wording works: it names the task as well as the tool; it states the check; it draws the line at the opinion, where Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(i) and the "prepared and signed by the witness" duty sit; and it doesn't promise anything the log can't show.
AI-use log: the record behind the paragraph
Keep 1 row per AI task, written the day you do it. The sample rows are synthetic, no real patient.
| Date | Tool and plan | Task | Input | Output kept | What I checked | Problems found |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-02 | Record tool, BAA plan | Deduplicate and index | Records from counsel, 1,912 pages | Index and chronology PDF | Page count against counsel's transmittal | 2 pages unreadable; asked counsel for clean copies |
| 2026-10-03 | Record tool, BAA plan | Chronology of ED visit and admission | Same file | Chronology, 214 entries | All 31 entries my opinion relies on, against source pages | 1 wrong time on a nursing note; corrected from the page |
| 2026-10-05 | Literature tool | Search for guidance on the condition, 2019 to 2022 | Search terms only, no patient data | List of 12 papers | Read 5 in full; cite 4 | 1 summary misdescribed a study's population |
Columns that do the work: "Input" shows no health information left a BAA-covered tool; "What I checked" is your answer to deposition question 8; "Problems found" proves you checked, which is more convincing than claiming the tool made no mistakes.
Where the rules are heading
England and Wales are further along. The Civil Justice Council's consultation, published 2026-02-17, proposed that an expert's statement of truth explain any AI use other than transcription or administrative tasks and name the tools (Norton Rose Fulbright, read 2026-11-12). The Academy of Experts published AI guidance for expert witnesses on 2026-01-30, with a checklist that includes recording how each tool was used. US federal courts have no such rule yet, and the evidence rules committee has paused its AI proposal. A disclosure habit built now will fit whatever comes.