Expert insights, legal technology trends, and best practices for working with expert witnesses
Utah strikes a balance between efficiency and meaningful expert discovery, providing litigants with flexibility while ensuring that opposing parties receive sufficient information to evaluate and challenge expert opinions before trial
A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has, for the first time, recognised a limited power to modify arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The 4:1 majority decision in Gayatri Balasamy v. M/s ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited (April 30, 2025) resolves decades of conflicting precedent - but leaves important questions open for practitioners and institutional arbitration in India.
India's corporate fraud landscape has changed faster in the last three years than in the previous decade. The perpetrators have new tools - AI-generated deepfakes, crypto layering, supply chain ghost entities. So do the investigators. Machine learning now processes entire transaction ledgers overnight; blockchain analytics traces assets across jurisdictions in real time; and explainable AI can narrate why a specific payment was flagged. For attorneys managing complex disputes, this shift matters in two directions: it changes how fraud is detected, and it is changing what forensic evidence looks like when it arrives in arbitration.
There is a moment in almost every complex piece of litigation when an attorney must make a decision that will quietly determine how the entire case develops — before a single deposition has been taken, before a trial date has been set, often before the complaint has even been filed. That decision is whether to bring in an expert, and in what capacity. Most people outside the legal profession think of expert witnesses in a single, monolithic way: a credentialed professional who takes the stand, swears an oath, and explains technical matters to a jury. That image captures only part of the picture. Behind that visible expert — the one who testifies, whose opinions appear in court filings, and whose methodology will be scrutinized under the Daubert standard — there is frequently another expert: one who never testifies, whose work is shielded from opposing counsel, and who plays an entirely different strategic role in the architecture of a case. These are the two categories the law recognizes: the testifying expert and the consulting expert. Understanding the distinction between them — the legal protections each carries, the obligations each creates, and the strategic functions each serves — is essential knowledge for anyone who works in or around litigation. The attorneys, experts, and practitioners who have shared their experiences on the On the Stand with Ashish Arun podcast across three seasons provide a rare, unfiltered window into how this distinction plays out in the real world of litigation practice.
India is executing the largest infrastructure programme in its history - and delay claims are exploding. Most fail, not on the law, but on evidence. This guide explains the analytical methods Indian tribunals actually accept, why reconstructed narratives keep losing, and what contractors and their counsel must do from day one.
The expert witness framework of Nevada emphasizes flexibility and judicial discretion, allowing courts to assess qualifications and reliability on a case-by-case basis
Imagine you are a board-certified colorectal surgeon in Richmond, Virginia, with decades of clinical experience and the credentials to serve as a powerful expert witness. Somewhere across the country, an attorney in Omaha, Nebraska is working a medical malpractice case and desperately needs exactly your expertise. They are making calls, searching online, and asking colleagues. Do they find you? Dr. Stephen Cohen—a board-certified colorectal surgeon and expert witness featured in Season 3, Episode 1 of On The Stand with Ashish Arun—has posed this exact question to colleagues eager to enter the medico-legal space: “If I’m a new surgeon in private practice and I want to do expert witness work and I live in Richmond, Virginia, and a patient who thinks they’re harmed walks into an attorney in Omaha, Nebraska… how do you link those two?” For most experts, the honest answer is: there is no link. Not yet. The most qualified expert in the room is often invisible to the attorneys who need them most—not because of any lack of credentials, but because they have fundamentally misunderstood how the attorney search process actually works. This article draws on in-depth conversations with attorneys and expert witnesses across multiple disciplines and seasons of On The Stand with Ashish Arun to reveal the real pipeline: how attorneys actually find experts, what channels they use, why some search approaches frustrate them, and what the most in-demand experts do differently.
North Carolina favors early disclosure of expert testimony, allowing opposing parties a meaningful opportunity to evaluate and challenge expert opinions before trial
