Important Considerations When Using AI in Your Work Product as a Financial Expert
Important Considerations When Using AI in Your Work Product as a Financial Expert
In a 2024 court case in New York, a judge found a financial expert to be unreliable, in part due to his use of AI to calculate financial damages. In that case, the expert used Microsoft Copilot AI software to cross-check his calculations, and the court emphasized that artificial intelligence tools require accurate and appropriate inputs to produce reliable results. As the court noted, the old adage applies: “Garbage in, garbage out.”
That principle applies to all of our work as financial experts—regardless of what software we use, the quality of our output depends on the quality of the data we input. A missing or inaccurate data point can skew results, undermining the credibility of our analysis. This case serves as a strong reminder to document your process, maintain notes on how you arrived at your calculations, and include an index of the data used in your analysis. Doing so ensures transparency and strengthens the defensibility of your expert opinions.
Defining Artificial Intelligence
In reviewing cases and court practice rules from across the country, the Court found:
“Artificial Intelligence (‘AI’) is properly defined as being any technology that uses machine learning, natural language processing, or any other computational mechanism to simulate human intelligence—including document generation, evidence creation or analysis, and legal research—and/or the capability of computer systems or algorithms to imitate intelligent human behavior.”
Under this definition, any software program used to generate documents or analyze information could be subject to scrutiny.
Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court
The Court recognized that:
“The use of artificial intelligence is a rapidly growing reality across many industries. The mere fact that artificial intelligence has played a role, which continues to expand in our everyday lives, does not make the results generated by artificial intelligence admissible in Court.”
Recent decisions show that courts are mindful of due process issues that can arise when decisions are made by software programs—especially when using cutting-edge technologies— rather than by, or under the direction of, a human analyst. For example, the Court of Appeals has acknowledged that certain industry-specific AI technologies, such as computer-generated DNA analysis, may be generally accepted—but only when supported by expert testimony explaining the mathematical formulas, underlying processes, and relevant peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals.
Best Practices for Using AI in Expert Work
Given the ongoing evolution of AI, the following are recommended best practices when preparing expert opinions and reports:
1. Disclose any software or AI technology used in analyzing data or generating your opinion.
2. Maintain a list of all source documents and materials used to input data.
3. Document your methodology, including any formulas applied in your analysis, and be prepared to explain it.
4. Cite industry standards and relevant scholarly publications that support your methods and include these references in your report.
By following these best practices, you demonstrate a commitment to methodological integrity, ensuring your work product meets the highest standards of accuracy and reliability.
Full Case Citation
If you are interested in reading the full case, you can find it here: Matter of Weber, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 24258 (Sur. Ct. Saratoga Cnty. 2024),