Why Ad Hoc Conflict Searches Break Down
The problem isn't due diligence in principle — it's that screening a shortlist of damages experts across thousands of court records, prior retentions, and published reports is genuinely labor-intensive work, and it often falls between the cracks of deal staffing and litigation management. A missed retention in a related case, an undisclosed consulting relationship, or a prior opinion that conflicts with the current theory creates a Rule 26 vulnerability that opposing counsel will find if the team doesn't. The cost isn't just the expert; it's the schedule disruption, the motion practice, and the credibility damage.
An Agent That Screens Before the Deadline
An AI Labor Company agent works from Relativity case data, iManage matter files, Westlaw Edge, and public PACER records to compile a prior-retention and conflict screen for every candidate damages expert the team is considering. It identifies prior retentions across federal cases, surfaces any published opinions or prior testimony that could create a conflict with the current damages theory, and generates a Rule 26-ready disclosure memo for each expert. The result is a ranked shortlist with full disclosure documentation routed to the securities litigation partner before the expert disclosure deadline. Conflict screening time typically drops 60–80%, and the process can be running in about 6 weeks.
The Case for Systematizing This Work
The value here is straightforward: one successful expert challenge in a securities class action can cost the firm more in remediation — substitute expert fees, schedule motions, client relationship management — than the screening program costs for an entire year of matters. Beyond risk avoidance, the agent enables the team to consider a broader expert pool more quickly, which often leads to a stronger candidate selection. With a $40K–$120K per-matter cost structure, the program pays for itself if it prevents a single challenged expert scenario on a meaningful case.
Can the agent screen experts for non-financial conflicts, such as academic relationships or publication history that conflicts with our damages theory?
Yes. The agent searches published academic papers, prior testimony transcripts, and disclosed consulting arrangements in addition to court-of-record retentions. The scope of the screen is configurable per matter.
Does the agent integrate with our existing NetDocuments or iManage matter structure so the disclosure memos land in the right place?
Yes. The agent outputs disclosure memos directly into your iManage or NetDocuments matter file with the appropriate naming convention, and routes approval tasks through whatever workflow the litigation team already uses.