For counsel navigating an AI dispute
AI Expert Witness
& Litigation Consultant.
Make the technical facts understandable.
When an AI system becomes part of a dispute, the important questions sit beneath the label. What was promised? What did the system actually do? What evidence supports the explanation?
Independent judgment
A technical opinion needs a visible path back to the evidence.
I am offering AI litigation consulting and expert-witness services as a new extension of my consulting practice. Each proposed engagement begins with a review of the subject, the requested role, and the experience needed to address it.
A contract describes one version of an AI project. The demonstration shows another. The employees using it may describe something different again.
I help counsel examine those differences. My focus is the relationship between the technology, the process it was placed inside, and the business representations made about it. That may involve an assistant producing unsupported answers, an implementation that depends on undocumented human work, or a claim about AI search visibility that the underlying report does not establish.
The useful question is often specific. Which information could the system access on the relevant date? What was a reviewer expected to check? Did the evaluation measure a draft, an accepted result, or a completed business task? Was the disputed behavior introduced by a later configuration change?
My work is to develop an explanation that another person can follow and examine. I distinguish the records from the assumptions, identify competing explanations, and state what remains unknown. A conclusion should become more precise as the evidence improves.
I am available to consider matters for either side. Retaining counsel defines the assignment and the legal questions. The evidence determines the technical opinions I can support.
Match the role to the proceeding
Consultation. Resolution.
Potential testimony.
An early assessment and a courtroom opinion serve different purposes. We agree on the intended role before substantive work begins.
Consulting support for counsel
Evaluate the technical account, identify missing materials, explain unfamiliar systems, and help counsel develop focused questions. The initial work may establish whether the available evidence supports further investigation and which additional specialists are needed.
Potential deliverables include an issue map, a technical chronology, a review of stated capabilities, or questions for counsel to consider during discovery and deposition preparation.
Mediation & arbitration support
Help counsel and the client understand the technical points that matter to resolution. A clear explanation can separate a disagreement about system behavior from a disagreement about what the agreement required.
I can support a retaining party’s preparation and, where agreed, explain the analysis during the proceeding. Serving as a jointly retained technical expert would require a separate written scope. This service does not position me as the mediator or arbitrator.
Reports, deposition & testimony
Consider a testifying assignment where the subject fits my qualifications and the available facts permit a supportable opinion. The scope may include a report, deposition testimony, hearing participation, or trial testimony.
Counsel determines the applicable procedural requirements and deadlines. Qualification and admissibility remain matters for the relevant court or tribunal; acceptance of a consulting assignment does not promise admission of testimony.
Where my work may fit
The dispute should determine the expertise.
My strongest proposed focus is applied AI in business: the claims made about a system, the workflow around it, the people responsible for it, and the evidence used to describe its performance. These are areas for an initial fit assessment, not a claim of qualification for every dispute involving AI.
AI vendor promises and implementation disputes
A vendor may describe an automated process while the delivered service requires substantial manual intervention. A customer may expect capabilities that depend on source material, integrations, or permissions outside the agreed delivery.
I can examine the technical meaning of the representations, the documented dependencies, the delivered workflow, and the differences between demonstrations and ordinary use. Counsel addresses contract interpretation and legal liability.
Generated answers and the review process
An incorrect answer deserves an investigation into how it reached the user. The relevant records may include source documents, retrieval results, instructions, tool actions, review procedures, and changes to the application.
The analysis can distinguish an unsupported generated statement from an outdated source, a retrieval failure, a permission issue, or a human approval decision. It should also explain when the record is too incomplete to identify the cause.
Performance claims and evaluation methods
“Accurate,” “autonomous,” and “time saving” need operational definitions. A test may measure selected examples while the disputed business process includes exceptions, corrections, waiting time, and downstream work.
I can review how a claim was measured, which cases were included, what counted as a successful outcome, and whether the comparison addressed the actual use. A weak evaluation can be identified without pretending that it proves every reported failure.
AI search, GEO and digital visibility representations
A ranking report, an AI-generated mention, a citation, and a qualified customer inquiry describe different events. Disputes arise when a report is used to support a broader commercial claim than its scope permits.
My search and GEO work provides a practical basis for examining reporting definitions, tracked queries, dates, locations, result types, and comparisons. The assignment might concern whether a visibility claim accurately describes the supplied evidence. Business-loss calculations or legal causation may require separate expertise.
Human oversight and operational responsibility
A process diagram may show a human reviewer without establishing what the reviewer could see, how much time the role required, or whether that person could stop the workflow.
I can examine the documented process and its practical dependencies: escalation paths, employee instructions, approval steps, access arrangements, and the handoff between software and people. The account should reflect the responsibilities and constraints that existed at the time.
Handover, access and vendor dependency
The delivery of files does not necessarily establish that a client could continue operating a workflow. Important dependencies may remain in an account, an integration, a configuration, or knowledge held by the outgoing provider.
I can help identify what the records show was available, what remained dependent on the provider, and what a claimed handover actually enabled. Counsel evaluates ownership and contractual rights. A forensic collection or specialist code examination requires an appropriately qualified practitioner.
How I would approach the assignment
Make each step open to examination.
A persuasive explanation should survive questions about its sources, its assumptions, and the alternatives it considered.
I propose the method after understanding the assignment and the available material. Some questions can be addressed through records. Others require a carefully bounded test or a different specialist.
Define the question and the relevant period.
We identify the system, the disputed behavior or representation, the dates that matter, and the requested opinion. An application operating today may differ from the one involved in the dispute. The scope needs to preserve that distinction.
Identify the record and its gaps.
I organize the authorized material around the question. That can include statements of work, demonstrations, evaluation records, operating instructions, source versions, incident records, and documented changes. Missing records remain explicit gaps; they do not become assumed facts.
Trace the business and technical sequence.
What entered the system? Which sources and tools were available? What action followed? Where did a person intervene? A chronology can expose differences between a described workflow and the recorded sequence without attributing every difference to the model.
Examine alternatives and test where justified.
A proposed explanation should be assessed against other plausible causes. Any authorized testing needs a stated purpose, relevant conditions, documented configuration, and limits. A present-day reconstruction must be identified as such and evaluated for its relationship to the historical system.
Explain the conclusion and its boundaries.
The work product connects each opinion to the material and reasoning supporting it. It distinguishes observations, assumptions, interpretations, and unresolved questions. New evidence may change the analysis; a useful report makes that possibility understandable.
Illustrative analysis / not a past engagement
A wrong answer is an event.
Its explanation requires a record.
Consider a fictional dispute involving an AI assistant that drafts product responses. The customer says the assistant repeatedly used obsolete specifications. The provider says its system relied on documents supplied by the customer. Neither account, standing alone, establishes how the disputed response was produced.
The first task would be to establish which records could distinguish the competing explanations.
What capabilities, source-update arrangements, exclusions, and review obligations were represented? A sales demonstration and an operating instruction may answer different questions.
Which specification version was available at the relevant time? Was it ingested, accessible, and retrieved for the disputed response? A current folder is not automatically a record of historical availability.
What do the available records establish about the request, retrieved material, generated draft, and any subsequent action? Where the sequence is incomplete, the report should identify what cannot be reconstructed.
Was the answer a draft awaiting review or a message already sent? What information did the reviewer receive? The mere existence of an approval button does not describe the review actually performed.
The explanation may point to source management, retrieval, instructions, review, or several interacting conditions. It may also remain unresolved. The conclusion should reflect the evidence available, with legal responsibility addressed by counsel.
This hypothetical illustrates the questions I would consider. It describes no client, previous case, completed investigation, or outcome.
The person doing the work
Dr. Robert Urban
Scientific habits. Executive context. Clear communication.
You work directly with me. I assess the proposed assignment, discuss the scope with counsel, and take responsibility for the work I accept. If the matter needs expertise beyond that scope, I identify the need early.
Review my background and credentials ↗My scientific background shapes how I examine assumptions, evaluate competing explanations, and distinguish a result from the conditions under which it was produced. The qualifications relevant to a particular assignment should be considered against its specific subject.
My executive consulting work connects people, processes, technology, and growth. That perspective is useful when a dispute concerns what an AI implementation required from the organization and how its claimed value was measured.
My work includes how businesses are discovered and represented in search and AI answers. I can bring that context to a review of digital visibility claims, while distinguishing a dated ranking observation from a conclusion about revenue, market position, or responsibility for a loss.
I am a Marine veteran and a seven-time bestselling comedy writer. Those experiences are part of how I communicate and approach responsibility. For a legal engagement, the relevant standard is whether I can explain the subject accurately, answer the question asked, and make the reasoning accessible.
A scope counsel can evaluate
Agree on the work before assigning an opinion.
A useful first engagement might be a bounded review of the proposed technical questions and a defined set of records. From there, counsel can decide whether to commission further analysis, seek additional material, engage another specialist, or consider a testifying role.
The written scope should identify the questions, deliverables, assumptions about access, timing, fees, and the intended use of the work. If the role changes, we revisit those arrangements. Compensation is for the work performed and is not contingent on a preferred opinion or case outcome.
I do not offer legal representation or determine the legal merits of the case. Specialized subjects such as forensic media authentication, model-training source-code analysis, statistical discrimination testing, medical standards, and damages valuation need an explicit assessment of the qualifications required. They are not automatically included because the dispute involves AI.
For federal matters, Federal Rule of Evidence 702 addresses expert qualifications and the reliability and factual basis of testimony. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 addresses expert disclosures and discovery. Counsel should establish the requirements that apply to the proceeding, including relevant state or tribunal rules.
We also agree on an appropriate method for transferring and handling materials. I do not assume that labeling a discussion “confidential” establishes a legal protection. Counsel directs the applicable arrangements and any restrictions on software, storage, or use of third-party AI tools.
Questions from counsel
Before we begin.
Do you consider assignments for plaintiffs and defendants?
Yes. I am available to consider engagements with counsel for either side, subject to conflicts, scheduling, and subject-matter fit. My technical opinions must follow the evidence. I do not accept an assignment on the condition that I reach a predetermined conclusion.
Have you previously testified as an AI expert witness?
This is a new service offering. I do not present it as an established record of AI courtroom testimony. The initial discussion focuses on the qualifications relevant to the proposed assignment, the work requested, and whether a consulting or potential testifying role is appropriate.
Can you assist before a lawsuit is filed?
I can consider a defined technical consultation for counsel evaluating a developing dispute. That may involve explaining the system, reviewing representations, identifying unanswered questions, and helping counsel assess which additional expertise or records would be useful.
Can you participate in mediation?
Where agreed in the engagement, I can help counsel prepare a technical explanation and support discussion of the disputed AI issues. My role would be technical support for the retaining party, unless the parties separately agree on a joint expert role. I am not offering to act as the mediator.
Can you tell whether a document or image was generated by AI?
That is a separate authenticity question. I do not offer definitive authorship or media-authentication findings based on a detector score or stylistic impression. A matter requiring forensic authentication should be scoped with a specialist qualified for the particular evidence.
Can you review another expert’s technical account?
I can consider a review within my subject-matter competence. The work would address the account’s factual support, definitions, assumptions, evaluation methods, and alternative explanations. Counsel determines how to use that analysis in the proceeding.
Can you guarantee that a court will accept your testimony?
No. Acceptance depends on the particular qualifications, opinions, methodology, evidence, and applicable rules, with the decision belonging to the court or tribunal. We assess fit before discussing a testifying assignment.
How are fees and scheduling handled?
Fees, any retainer, deliverables, availability, and deadlines are agreed in writing for the proposed scope. A document review, deposition, and trial assignment can require different preparations. Share the known dates in the first inquiry so we can assess feasibility.
What should I send first?
Begin with your name, firm, contact details, the parties and relevant entities for a conflicts check, a general description of the AI issue, the requested role, and known deadlines. Wait for agreed handling arrangements before sending substantive case files, privileged communications, personal records, or credentials.
Start with the technical question
What does counsel need to understand?
Tell me the general nature of the AI dispute, the role you are considering, and the dates that matter.
407-227-0741
robert@paperboatmedia.com
Based in DeLand, Florida. Remote and on-site arrangements considered for the specific engagement.
A focused first inquiry
- Your name, firm, and contact information.
- Parties and relevant entities for an initial conflicts check.
- A general description of the disputed system or claim.
- The proceeding, requested role, and known deadlines.
Please wait to send substantive case materials until conflicts, scope, and handling arrangements have been addressed. An inquiry does not establish an engagement.
Related professional background
The business and operational context behind my consulting work.
How I approach discoverability, visibility, and the meaning of search evidence.
My background, working style, and direct consulting approach.
Procedural references: Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, reviewed September 22, 2026. This page describes a proposed professional engagement and does not provide legal advice.