By Christina Knorr, Fire Safety Expert and Expert Witness
I recently attended the Expert Witness Symposium 2025, held at the Hilton Sydney on the 28th August. It was a valuable day of discussion with judges, lawyers, barristers, scientists and fellow experts. The sessions explored how expert evidence is changing, and what remains constant in our role. The main focus was on artificial intelligence.
AI and Expert Evidence
One of the most interesting panels looked at generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) in expert evidence. The discussion, moderated by a university professor, brought together a Federal Court Judge, Chief Forensic Scientist from Victoria Police and a law firm partner.
In NSW, the Supreme Court Practice Note SC GEN 23, Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI) was released on 21 November 2024, then an updated version on 28 January 2025. The Practice Note stipulates that Gen AI must not be used to draft or prepare the content of expert reports, unless the Court grants leave to do so. Other states and territories have also begun releasing guidelines, though NSW currently has the strictest position.
On 28 March 2025, the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia issued a Notice to the Profession on Artificial intelligence use in the Federal Court of Australia. The Federal Court is taking a more cautious, consultative approach – essentially waiting to see how other courts act before their AI Project Group considers developing a Guideline or Practice Note.
AI can process vast amounts of data and reveal patterns humans might miss. But the panel reminded us that experts must remain cautious. AI is only as good as the models, training data and assumptions behind it, and courts will rely on us to explain its reliability. The accuracy of some AI models can be a low as 3%.
The key message was clear: AI may support our work, but it cannot replace the independence and judgement of an expert witness.
The Pressure of Hot-Tubbing
The next session at the Symposium was a live mock concurrent evidence session (“hot-tub”) which gave a real insight into the pressure experts face when questioned side-by-side. It showed how important it is to stay calm, clear, and precise. Even when experts disagree, the ability to explain opinions in plain language is as important as the technical evidence itself.
Conclaves and Joint Reports
The final panel discussed expert conclaves and joint reports. From my experience, I find conclaves work best when the questions are carefully framed. If the legal teams seek input from the experts when drafting those questions, the process is usually more efficient and the outcomes more useful. It also helps when experts’ areas of focus somewhat align. Otherwise, discussions can become fragmented and less productive.
Symposium Takeaway
The Symposium reinforced that while AI and new processes are shaping our field, the foundation of expert evidence remains the same: independence, impartiality, and clarity. AI may assist with tasks beyond human capacity, but the Court depends on experts to provide their own considered opinions.
The credibility of our profession (and the trust placed in it) ultimately rests on that foundation.
Expert Witness Symposium 2025