Transcript:
Adam Bloomberg:
Welcome, everyone, to IMS Elevate. I'm Adam Bloomberg, Senior Client Success Advisor here at IMS Legal Strategies.
AI is everywhere. We see it on the news, it's on our Facebook and Instagram feeds, and clients are wondering how it's going to impact litigation and, for us at IMS, trial presentation. So today, we're going to explore a question that many legal teams are wrestling with. How can AI be used responsibly when presenting a case without creating credibility concerns, evidentiary challenges, or ethical issues?
Joining me is Josh Stanhill, Senior Technology Consultant at IMS. Josh has a very unique perspective on where AI can add value and where attorneys should proceed with caution. So, Josh, welcome.
Josh Stanhill:
Thanks, Adam.
Adam:
What questions are you getting about AI today in your work?
Josh:
The biggest thing we're seeing right now is curiosity. Attorneys know AI is advancing rapidly, but they're trying to determine where it fits in presenting their case in the courtroom. They're asking practical questions like: Can AI help clean up difficult exhibits? Can it improve video evidence? Can it save time in trial preparation? But they're also asking important questions about admissibility, transparency, and juror perception.
Adam:
Yeah, that makes sense. Now, when lawyers hear “AI and litigation,” they often jump immediately to concerns about fabricated evidence. I saw a Bloomberg Law article around deepfake video depositions. But there are also legitimate practical applications that, if used responsibly, can really help a case presentation. So what are some examples of AI being used responsibly in the courtroom today?
Josh:
Most of the valuable applications we're seeing involve enhancement rather than creation or manipulation. I was just in a trial two months ago in Sacramento. The case had decades-old contracts with diagrams of facilities that were really hard to read. We needed to show the jury so they could get an idea of who signed off on the plans and compare those signatures. AI tools sometimes help improve legibility significantly faster than traditional manual methods.
Adam:
Yeah, OK. What about video? We use video a lot in our cases. What about video?
Josh:
Absolutely. The same applies for video evidence. Security footage is notoriously low quality. AI tools can help sharpen details, improve visibility, or blur confidential information that shouldn't be shown to a jury. Those situations where underlying evidence isn't changing, we're simply making it easier to see or understand.
Adam:
Yeah. And I think that's the important distinction. We're not creating evidence or manipulating files. We're helping jurors view existing evidence more clearly. Now, I've also seen situations where AI can save hours or even days of manual editing work. What have you got on that?
Josh:
Exactly the point. Like any technology, the value comes from how it's used and whether there's appropriate oversight.
Adam:
All right, so let's talk about that oversight piece, because it really is central to the conversation. At IMS, what's the philosophy around using AI?
Josh:
First and foremost, AI should always be attorney-directed. The attorney needs to understand what's being done, why it's being done, and how the final product will be used in the courtroom. There should never be a situation where AI is quietly making substantive changes without counsel's knowledge. So transparency is critical when enhancements are made. Those decisions should be documented and discussed with the trial team. Then meet and confer with opposing counsel prior to bringing it in front of the court.
Adam:
And I think that's a good point because credibility can disappear very quickly if opposing counsel discovers modifications that weren't disclosed or agreed to. So that's a good point. All right, so let's discuss the other side of the equation. Where do you start getting uncomfortable with AI?
Josh:
The biggest concern is when AI begins altering rather than enhancing. We had a case in Delaware where opposing counsel wanted to show an org chart. They used AI headshot tools to manipulate the leadership team at the company. They took multiple witness photographs and made those witnesses to appear younger, healthier, friendlier, and more sympathetic. At first, it seems subtle. Opposing counsel decided not to exchange any of this opening deck with us so no meet and confer happened. We objected right away. The judge ruled it out. They couldn't use any of their slides and just had to do it speaking to the jury.
Adam:
Imagine if that got in front of the jury.
Josh: I can't. I mean, you're talking about, if it got in front of a juror and they notice AI, you've created a credibility issue that can overshadow your entire presentation. Now the conversation isn't about your evidence, it's whether you/your team manipulated the evidence.
Adam:
Yeah. And juries today are like us. They're much more aware of AI than they were even a year ago.
Josh:
Absolutely. I mean, people are surprisingly good at spotting AI-generated content. Jurors are bringing that skepticism into the courtroom. Even when a graphic is completely legitimate, if it looks overly processed or artificial, it could trigger questions. That's why restraint is often as important as capability.
Adam:
Yeah. So let's stay on that topic for a moment. I know you're not a jury consultant or an attorney, but you do sit in a lot of mock trials and courtrooms every single week. You're often referred to as the 13th juror. So curious, how do you think AI is changing juror perceptions?
Josh:
I think we're entering a period where jurors are fascinated by AI and also skeptical of it.
They understand that technology exists. They know videos can be manipulated. Images can be altered. Because of that, visual evidence may receive more scrutiny than ever before. That means trial teams have to think not only about whether a graphic is effective, but whether it appears trustworthy. The most persuasive demonstrative in the world loses value if jurors start wondering whether it was generated by AI.
Adam:
Yeah, that's a fascinating shift because historically, visuals are often increasing credibility. Now attorneys may need to think about whether a visual introduces credibility questions. So, all right, another topic attorneys have asked about frequently is confidentiality. When AI tools are used, when we’ve got, let's say it's editing videos, where's that data going?
Josh:
That's a very important consideration. Whether a case involves sealed or sensitive evidence, confidentiality is paramount, and not all AI platforms are the same. We only use closed AI environments, like enterprise-level systems within platforms like Adobe or Microsoft Copilot, that are designed to keep information within the organization's controlled environment. The concern with some open systems is that users may not fully understand how data is stored, processed, or retained. Before uploading any materials, attorneys should understand exactly what protections exist.
Adam:
Curious, are there any rules of evidence on that?
Josh:
There is: 707 addresses AI and how it's brought to the courts. Counsel also has to have the conversation that includes data security, especially when it comes to an expert witness and how they testify.
Adam:
OK, so one of the things your team and our graphics group are discussing is developing a formal set of AI practices. What do you think those conversations should focus on?
Josh:
I think the most valuable approach is sharing real-world experiences. How was AI used in trial? Why was it used? What prompts or workflows were involved? How did opposing counsel react if it was used? Did jurors have questions afterward? The more examples we collect, the better we can establish practical guidelines.
Adam:
Right, and if it was objected to. So, as we wrap up, where do you think the conversation goes over the next few years, or better yet, the next 12 months?
Josh:
AI will become more of a standard tool in litigation support, much like video editing, graphic software, or trial presentation technology. The real question won't be whether firms use AI. The question will be whether they use it responsibly. Law firms that succeed will be the ones that balance efficiency, transparency, ethics, and human judgment. And I also see the rules of evidence continuing to evolve.
Adam:
Yeah, well, that's a great way to end. Josh, thank you so much for joining me today and sharing your perspective.
Josh:
Thanks, Adam. I really do appreciate the opportunity.
Adam:
All right. And for everyone out there, thank you so much for sticking around. If you'd like to hear more content like this, please follow us here on LinkedIn or over on our YouTube channel. We'll see you next time.
Outro:
Thank you to our guests for speaking with us today. To discover how the IMS team can help give your case an edge, check out imslegal.com or shoot us an email at contactus@imslegal.com.
For over 30 years and across more than 65,000 cases worldwide, IMS has partnered with trusted law firms and corporations throughout the litigation lifecycle, providing comprehensive expertise and technology to help clients solve complex challenges.
