Expert insights, legal technology trends, and best practices for working with expert witnesses
Category: Communication Between Experts, Decision-Makers and Counsel - Good expert witness guidance exists almost everywhere, yet the same problems keep recurring in practice. This piece examines why, breaking the gap down into awareness, incentive, and enforcement failures, and looks at which interventions actually change behavior versus which ones just add another document to the pile.
Category: Communication Between Experts, Decision-Makers and Counsel - Traditional sequential testimony struggles with a specific kind of expert disagreement: genuine methodological deadlock, where two experts disagree on the analytical approach itself rather than the underlying facts. This piece explains how concurrent evidence sessions, or hot-tubbing, address that problem directly, and where the format's real limits lie.
Category: Communication Between Experts, Decision-Makers and Counsel - Nearly every experienced expert has felt the pull, at some point, to bypass the process and explain a critical technical point directly to the tribunal. This piece examines why that instinct almost always deserves respect but not action, and lays out the proper channels that achieve the same goal without sacrificing procedural fairness.
Category: Communication Between Experts, Decision-Makers and Counsel - Collaboration between opposing experts is usually treated as an unambiguous virtue, but not every concession made in a joint conference reflects genuine technical agreement. This piece draws the line between conceding a point because the analysis warrants it and conceding ground because disagreement starts to feel socially uncomfortable, and offers a practical test for telling the two apart in real time.
Category: Communication Between Experts, Decision-Makers and Counsel - Most joint expert conferences happen exactly once, near the end of a case, after both positions have already hardened. This piece questions that convention and lays out a structured, milestone-based alternative, along with the safeguards needed to make more frequent contact between opposing experts safe rather than risky.
Category: Communication Between Experts, Decision-Makers and Counsel - Most of the waste in expert evidence happens before anyone notices it: reports built around the wrong questions, scopes that never quite line up. This piece makes the case for a short, disciplined early meeting that narrows the technical issues before either expert starts drafting, and shows what it should and shouldn't cover.
Category: Communication Between Experts, Decision-Makers and Counsel - Two competent, independent experts can reach sharply different conclusions on the same question, not because either did flawed work, but because they were given different legal assumptions to build on. This piece looks at how conflicting guidance to opposing experts quietly undermines comparability, and what experts, counsel, and tribunals can each do about it.
Category: Communication Between Experts, Decision-Makers and Counsel - Litigators disagree about what their role actually is during a joint expert report process, and the confusion has real consequences for how much weight a tribunal gives the result. This piece breaks counsel's proper role into three stages, before, during, and after the experts' conference, and shows exactly where useful support ends and counterproductive interference begins.
When attorneys don't pay expert witness invoices, what are your options? Learn practical strategies to document, escalate, recover unpaid fees, and protect future engagements.
Category: Communication Between Experts, Decision-Makers and Counsel - Joint expert reports are supposed to capture a candid, expert-to-expert exchange. Too often they read like a document negotiated by lawyers instead. This piece looks at where legitimate legal support ends, where substantive interference begins, and why the best joint statements are the ones counsel never touches.
