What truly separates effective expert witnesses from those who merely possess technical knowledge? According to family law attorney Carl Taylor, it comes down to the expert’s ability to translate complex information into compelling narratives that connect with judges and juries.

In this wide-ranging conversation, Taylor draws on over 15 years of courtroom experience to share what attorneys really look for when selecting expert witnesses. Beyond credentials and expertise, he emphasizes the importance of what he calls “authority assets” – the publications, speaking engagements, and thought leadership that establish an expert’s ongoing relevance. Perhaps most surprising is his insight that vulnerability between attorneys and experts often leads to stronger working relationships and more effective testimony.

Whether you’re an attorney who works with expert witnesses, an expert looking to improve your effectiveness, or simply curious about how complex information gets translated in our legal system, this episode offers valuable insights into a critical but often overlooked professional relationship. Taylor’s unique perspective as both a family law attorney and a publisher helping lawyers create authority assets makes this a must-listen conversation for anyone interested in the intersection of expertise and persuasion.

Note: Transcript has been lightly edited for clarity

Host: Noah Bolmer, Round Table Group

Guest: Carl Taylor, Founder of Books for Experts

Noah Bolmer: Welcome to Engaging Experts. I’m your host, Noah Bolmer, and today I’m excited to welcome Carl Taylor to the show. Mr. Taylor is a family law attorney, published author, and podcaster. His current project is Books for Experts, an attorney, expert, and professional publisher that’s focused on helping experts and attorneys create authority assets. Mr. Taylor holds a JD from Rutgers. Mr. Taylor, welcome to Engaging Experts. Thank you for joining me.

Carl Taylor: Noah, thank you for having me.

Noah Bolmer: You’ve spent over 15 years working as a family law attorney, and you are now moving into book publication. Tell me a little about how you got your start and where you’re headed.

Carl Taylor: Sure. Throughout my career in law, I’ve mostly done family law, but I’ve also served as Deputy County Counsel for a county in New Jersey. I’ve been a municipal prosecutor for 10 or 12 towns, and I’ve also, you know, worked in-house at a large insurance defense firm. So, the use of experts is near and dear to my heart, and I’m excited to have this conversation, but I’m also an English major at heart. During the pandemic, I had the misfortune to publish a few articles—sorry short stories, in the Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, like pro sales, speculative fiction. It opened to me this idea of like—the creative part of me. I wrote this book, Happily Even After: The Guide to Divorce in New Jersey in 2017. In its third edition, and what that meant was I was able to parlay that book into getting better referrals, increasing my prestige even amongst the gray hairs in my profession. Essentially, helping to create greater access to justice. My idea is to combine some of that desire or ability to be creative to help other lawyers get out from some of what I call marketing sludge that impacts our profession. The recycled blog posts, the unoriginal SEO, that doesn’t frame us as people because I think as attorneys and experts’ narrative is the key.

Noah Bolmer: When you were working as an attorney, did you do a significant amount of work with expert witnesses?

Carl Taylor: I’m not going to sit here and say every single case I had was with experts because I’ve mostly worked at small firms and on my own in family law, My clients, it was like, get an expert and they can’t always afford it, but it’s like I’m on the record here, you’re going to have experts. I’ve worked with forensic accountants. I’ve worked with custody best interest evaluators and employability experts. It definitely comes up and when I worked for the county and in house with one of the big insurance companies there is a constant use of experts for larger litigation files, which I know is more of what Round Table Group is involved with in terms of helping people find those assets. It’s definitely been a part of my practice throughout the last nearly 16 years, although it’s not. I’m not going here and say every single case had an expert because that would be disingenuous.

Noah Bolmer: Sure, of course. And I want you to tell us like it is. You mentioned Round Table Group, do you find expert witness referral agencies in general to be a valuable asset for attorneys?

Carl Taylor: Absolutely, especially if you don’t have something in your network. If there’s something a little outside of the norm for your practice area or your level of expertise, that’s the starting point. If you go to a Round Table or something like somebody who is more of a consultant as well as a directory then you can feel more trusting, but trust but verify as a lawyer. You’re out on the limb with the expert. The clients not going to say. “Oh, you hired—you went through an agency” They’re going to say, “You hired this expert and now they’re not doing what you need to do” You start with a place like Round Table and then you look to their what I call authority assets which I’m not trying to help other people build which is like, “How often do you speak? Do you have books of your own? Do you have articles? Do you appear on podcasts?” All that stuff adds to credibility. You go to your network first if you can. The number one thing I look to is the saying, “If you can’t beat them, join them.” My theory is if you can’t beat them, hire them. If I meet a young associate and they kind of have their way with me in court on something and they surprise me, I want to hire that person as an associate. Or if I have an expert who gets it over on me in court. I’m like, “I want to hire that expert for my next case.” So that’s the only thing I do to along with directories.

Noah Bolmer: Let’s talk about those initial phone calls. It’s a two-way vetting process. They’re vetting you and you’re vetting them. What are the things that you specifically but the attorneys generally are looking for in a good expert witness?

Carl Taylor: First off, availability. It’s like a star athlete. I’m here in Philadelphia. We have our history, Carson Wentz was a good quarterback, but he couldn’t stay healthy on the field. To me it’s like, “Are you going to be available?” One of the problems, especially in local networks, is you have the same proto-principle. Twenty percent of the experts do eighty percent of the work and then it’s hard to then calendar them. You become almost like a project manager and the judge doesn’t care if your expert is busy. That’s the key is I want to look for availability. I also want to look for someone who is what I call an authority. Somebody who has expertise. That gets you in the door. To qualify as an expert, you need expertise. But you also need to have narrative, the ability to take your data and all the cold, harsh truths of the case and spin it to a judge or jury in an understandable way. Also authenticity do they seem like they believe what they’re saying? Can they present as somebody? It’s like having a good dinner guest. An expert needs to be somebody that has a sense of humor. There’s a personality there. It’s not just data and numbers, because that’s not going to translate to the jury the way it needs to.

Noah Bolmer: Let’s unpack that a little. How can an expert witness be a good proverbial dinner guest? How do they perform in front of a jury in a way that they’re able to get their point across and also connect with the Finder of Fact?

Carl Taylor: Noah, that’s a great question. What I say is although some experts are translators, every expert needs to be a translator and the translator of the archaic knowledge that they possess. The thing about a good expert is that they can take something that Einstein, could conceive and cut it down so a smart fifth grade child could understand it. If you can’t do that, then you’re going to lose to—honestly, attorneys, you know you’re going to lose judges sometimes, and you definitely going to lose the jury. Half the time, you have to be able to take complex ideas, understand them, and be able to engage through personality, through perception, and through taking the story of the numbers and saying, “Ordinarily, it might be like this, when I used to work at the insurance defense firm, I didn’t want a doctor to say you have scapular winging. Because everyone in the jury is [thinking], “Scapular winging? What the heck is that?” It’s a winged type thing in your shoulder blade or cervical spine. Before I went into insurance defense, I didn’t know which part of your back was a lumbar or the cervical spine. I had no idea so the attorneys can help you with this. They can help you de-code this. I’m not saying that I’m Einstein. I have my limitations of knowledge especially in science or medicine, but if I don’t understand it—I think enough of myself to think if I don’t understand what these experts are telling me, we’re prepping. I don’t think the juries [are going to] understand either. I have to say to the expert, “This is where ego gets set aside in the name of performance, and most experts get it.

Noah Bolmer: You’re talking about qualifications and credibility. What are the most important things that experts need to be doing to maintain their credibility for engagements? Is it important that they’re academics? Do they need to be well published? Do they need to be members of various organizations? What are the most important things that experts should be doing to convey not only expertise but currency in their expertise?

Carl Taylor: For me, the red flag that I look for is does somebody have a great CV but it’s recent. If somebody put in the work at a certain point in time and created a great reputation, CV, and all the credentials, but it’s slowed down. I want somebody on the cutting edge. I want somebody who’s going to teach me something I don’t know, and point out to me not just what’s wrong about my case, but more importantly, and this is because I’m a pessimist, always tell me what’s bad that I’m missing. Tell me where there’s a logic gap or where there might be something that I’m not fully comprehending about this case because it helps me with settlement if I need to settle the case or it helps me in terms of how to defend the case at trial. For me, I want to see people who have authority assets. I keep going back to that people who publish, people who- you don’t have to be a professor, but you have to be somebody who’s engaged in your specific area of expertise. You do that through speaking. You do that through writing and through thought leadership. If you’re somebody who has slowed down in that regard, then that makes—it’s like being a solo attorney. I need to do marketing to get clients in. I get busy and then I do less marketing because I’m doing client work. I get how experts get into this. It’s like, I’m just now I’m always doing the expert stuff, but it’s like to me, I’m going to attack you on cross examination if you’re not updated. There’s a curve in any profession. The longer you’re at something sometimes the more effective you think you are but you’re actually falling behind. That’s true in medicine. That’s true in law. If you’re not keeping up to date with the proper memberships and credentials, then I think that’s a good way to try and to me, I don’t want to retain somebody who was great 10 years ago. I need somebody who’s great tomorrow.

Noah Bolmer: Is that something that you pre vet them for or is that something you discovered during the initial phone call?

Carl Taylor: It’s definitely both. It’s like any meeting, It’s like preparing for a podcast, even like the more homework you can do, the hopefully the more you come across and understand the terrain because law to me is a battle of the terrain. It’s not just the facts. If it were you wouldn’t need juries, and you wouldn’t need- it comes down to credibility. To me, I’m vetting them, and they’re vetting me. Is there credibility here? Is there reliability and yeah, I’m going to try and do my best to—If I see some gaps in their resume I’m making a chance to say, “Is there anything coming up that’s not on here yet or you have not updated recently?” Sometimes they forget to update their resume or they’re saying, “The last time I published something on osteoporosis was 1997. I’m like, “I watched the movie, The Verdict. I’m good.”

Noah Bolmer: Let’s talk about confidentiality and privilege a bit. How do you set these things up with expert witnesses? How do you make sure that when we’re in this modern environment, when everything is digital, how do we make sure that experts not only maintain confidentiality, but they’re also not showing the things to everyone. How do you audit that?

Carl Taylor: That’s a great question. Every expert should know the scope of their abilities. I’m not going to sit here and say I’m an expert in all things tech. I mean, that’s—it’s something that we’re all learning and it’s changing every day. It’s so fluid, especially with AI. I will say this, you need to ensure in the scope of the when you retain someone, you both need to understand what the scope of the assignment is. It might just be, “I need you to poke around a little and tell me what I’m missing.” It might be “I need you to get me something that helps me with settlement” or “I need something a little more, just give me all the good and the bad but put it in draft form for now, because if you come back like—” I used to do a lot of litigation involving construction defects at a certain point in time. It’s like, if you’re going to come back and tell me my contractor is the reason why there’s black mold in this lovely shore home, I don’t necessarily want that to be in a final report. I don’t want to learn about that then. You have to opine or discuss just like your clients will with you. Are you using like box.com or Dropbox? What’s the best way—e-mail is not. Everyone uses e-mail today for professional purposes but I think it’s quickly going to become, especially if quantum computing ever takes off, it’s not going to be enough, no matter how much you try to encrypt it. That’s something you have to know on the front end because again the sins of the expert are often visited upon the lawyer.

Noah Bolmer: Are lawyers using any proprietary software to communicate and transfer documents with expert witnesses?

Carl Taylor: Yeah, I definitely—there are software solutions out there. I’m not going to make a recommendation as to any one of them.

Noah Bolmer: Clearly.

Carl Taylor: I’m not sponsored yet, but there’s definitely- there [are] definitely solutions. The tough thing is you need to know enough about the solutions to know if they’re actually solving the problem that—there [are many] claims that are made, but it’s like are you now—you think you’re doing something? For me, I like to trust the big—I guess I’m going to sponsor a little. I like to trust the big companies who have been around for [awhile] like Microsoft. I trust them to know more than I do or even some startup companies might have about some of this data encryption type stuff. Google, yeah, I trust that- but that said they’re not- there’s enterprise solutions out there, They are designed for lawyers and just because it  says it’s made for lawyers, that’s a setting of nine out of ten dentists agree. It doesn’t always mean it works.

Noah Bolmer: Absolutely.

Carl Taylor: For me, direct examination is like laying bricks, and it’s so important. You have to be able to lay those bricks because that’s how you win a case, brick by brick. It’s somebody who likes Love Story, and I want to skip ahead because I’m like this is the boring part of the story. But after I remind myself in a case to just take it plotting brick by brick. Eventually it’s going to add up to something that’s worthwhile. “Wait, there’s an entire brick wall here.” Cross examination is like jazz. You never know exactly what to expect. You’re going to—the other attorney is going to be somebody’s trained in ways to try and trip you up or make you look silly, and your professional ego is going to kick in. Then you’re going to be like well, actually, you’re going to want to elucidate everything you know. Then, they [have] you. I always tell my clients, lose your temper, lose your case. That’s true in divorce law, but for an expert, it’s  become arrogant, lose the jury. Or as I tell my kids, the better you are at something, the more humble you better act about it. If you’re good at math you don’t need to go around tell everyone. When you’re good at math like that you should act humble about math and quietly do- quietly excel.

For me, it’s like the preparation is not just going over the data and over that sort of stuff. It’s going through how to- how they’re going to be perceived. I think what would my mom think looking at this person if she were in the jury box? What would she think of this person? If she doesn’t trust that expert then she’s going to start to feel a certain way about it.

And then, real quick, I would say that when I was a younger attorney I would sometimes have struggles with you [how to] build a good rapport with an expert and then you try and do trial prep. One thing you them is always be honest. Just be honest. We tell every client and every witness, but I also tell them the hardest place to sit in a courtroom is not where the judge sits. They have tenure. It’s not where the lawyer sits. The lawyer is asking the questions usually. Even the client—It’s on the witness stand. The witness stand is the hardest place to be in any courtroom. They have to be prepared for what a cross examination is going to look like. I used to sometimes go easy on them during cross because I didn’t want to ruin my rapport with them because it’s like Jekyll and Hyde. Now, I’m cross examining, I got to pretend I’m the other attorney. Now, I’m going to come after you like Jekyll and Hyde. Here’s Hyde. That’s one area where I would counsel any expert working with attorneys. Tell their attorneys, “Push me to understand where the flaws are and also make sure that as an expert, I know not just this small spot. That I see the entire puzzle we’re building here, not just this one little piece where I’m the expert.

Noah Bolmer: Absolutely. So you find mock cross to be a good tool for preparation in general?

Carl Taylor: For any witness there is some limits in certain cases of how much you want to get into it because you want to look like someone who has been over-prepped. At the same time, I feel like as long as you’re telling people and within the proper parameters, of psycho role lawyer, no, the proper parameters of the court rules and ethics. If you’re telling people to be honest but be aware of what questions might be coming or what questions might be coming, and even if it’s not going to be for a trial, it’s let’s just go through this so I understand the holes in my case.

Noah Bolmer: What sorts of venues have you worked at? Have you stuck around your particular location? Have you ever gone out of the state or into federal stuff, or even international?

Carl Taylor: It’s interesting. I was interviewing someone for a book I’m writing called Humanizing Lawyers: Defending the Profession That Won’t Defend Itself yesterday. She was a professor and a space lawyer, and she’s gone to the UN, to argue, or to advocate. I’m like the Truman Show. I can’t leave—I can’t leave New Jersey. My whole career has been in New Jersey. But the interesting thing is I’ve done everything from administrative law, because I’ve used to represent our school board. I’ve done a ton of county work. Obviously, I’ve done appellate work, and even some federal cases with employees of the county. I was municipal public defender or municipal prosecutor for many towns so I’ve done a lot of Municipal Court. If there’s anything in New Jersey that’s got a tribunal of any sort, I’ve probably served on it or been a part of it. Am I allowed to go across the Ben Franklin Bridge into Philadelphia as a lawyer? Not really.

Noah Bolmer: No, but to what extent is it important that expert witnesses understand a new venue. So, if you’re bringing somebody in and they’re maybe not from Jersey or they’ve never done an expert witness engagement in whatever venue that you’re in, do you need to prep them on any of that? Do they need to understand any of the actual legal stuff that goes along with it, or can they just sit there and answer questions truthfully and neutrally?

Carl Taylor: I have to look at how much experience they have in similar venues. Federal is federal for the most part. I imagine since I don’t get to leave New Jersey, district courts. But I also think that as I mentioned before, terrain is so important. If you come in you need to know this kind of case in this jurisdiction is actually a—it’s a bench trial. [There’s] not even going to be a jury. It’s your job as an attorney to take your expert by the hand and guide them over the terrain that is the case. Here’s what this judges proclivities may be. Here’s what juries, in even in New Jersey, they’re like, “You [have to] like the plaintiff’s attorney.” I got a car accident case referral and it’s like, which county? “Oh, that county. I can’t win there.” But it’s—one county over this case would be worth $2,000,000, but, in this county, it’s a $200,000 case or something. You have to always be teaching your experts the law, just like your experts have to always be teaching you their area of expertise. It’s a great symbiotic relationship that way. If there’s anything that they need to know, the judge always said the hardest part of the law is knowing it’s not being in the courtroom, it’s finding the courtroom. Knowing where to park. It’s things like that. “Don’t pay for the parking lot over there on Fifth Street. You have a free parking lot for people going to court on the back alley over there.”

Noah Bolmer: That’s a great point. Where do I park? But also, is this casual? What’s this judge like? How formal is this proceeding? What words should I use or not use? What’s the demeanor like here because I’ve heard that there can be quite formal engagements and quite casual engagements and expert witnesses are not always exactly sure what they’re getting themselves into.

Carl Taylor: Yeah. There, I’d go back to the scope. You have to, because the retainer agreement is the expert’s retainer agreement. It’s going to say if I do this, it cost this much. If you need me for this much it’s this much. If you need me to testify that [how] much per hour. But you need to know the exact, and not that it can’t change but you need to know exactly what the expected parameters are to begin with. Secondly, the worst enemy of any litigator is surprise. You don’t want to be surprised in court, and you don’t want your expert to be surprised. Attorneys could do a better job of putting—it comes back to professional empathy. Just so you know, your job is to go in there and testify to X, Y, and Z. That’s the scope of what we’re trying to get you to prove. You don’t give an opinion. Here’s the scope of what we’re working toward.

I had an expert a few years back on a custody evaluation case and they were at some professional convention the week of the trial, but they’re going to come back for the day to testify. Then, the day before they’re like, “They’ve asked me to give a keynote speech tomorrow so I’m going to stay here. I’m not going to come to court tomorrow.” I’m like, “Where [are] you?” “D.C.” “Okay, stay there because I’m going to drive down there to persuade.” I’m stating, “This judge is not—” Maybe it was on me. I’m like, “This is not the court that’s going to allow me to say, ‘I want an extension as my expert is at a convention’. They’re not going to allow it, and my client [has] paid you $30,000 to write the report, to prepare for trial, and you can’t spring this.” I got an e-mail 5:00 PM the day before trial [saying,] “I won’t be there tomorrow.” I’m [thinking], “No, absolutely not.” That’s where the lawyer’s expertise in persuasion comes in. I had to call him and convince him. To me, that’s where—I don’t think it was ill intentioned, but he said, “I thought the judge would understand.” I [replied], “You’ve been a witness enough to know judges are not going to understand a last-minute adjournment for experts. If you give me time, then fine, I can get it done. Secondly, this judge in particular is not going to give you a break.” You’re right, big and small, the more you communicate, communication is the key to any relationship. Especially [between an] attorney and an expert.

Noah Bolmer: Besides communication, what are the other keys to a positive, effective, [and] efficient engagement between an expert witness and an attorney?

Carl Taylor: Vulnerability is underestimated in our profession and that’s something [many] lawyers don’t like to talk about. We like to keep our armor on. Being able to say to—I’ve been practicing for almost 16 years, but first five years when I knew the least, I had to act like I knew the most. I didn’t know what I didn’t know. I [was] not going to let this expert know that I didn’t understand bridge suspension systems for the county. I’m just going [state], “Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. The tension and everything and the pie lines” or whatever, perfect. I have to be vulnerable enough to tell my experts, “I’m not following you.” Or “You’ve given me—I do a lot of math as a divorce lawyer, but this system you’re using for forensic accounting is over my head. I’m not following the breadcrumbs.” If I can’t understand it, I can’t present it. Being willing to have enough vulnerability to know your weaknesses and lawyers, we’re parasitic that way. We can become an expert in anything with enough time. Even still there are going to be things that just like for me like anything involving science, if it gets too involved, I start to glaze over. I’m like, “Gosh, environmental type stuff at a certain level- it’s too much for me to handle. So I have to say, “Take it slow. Talk like you’re talking to not an intelligent fifth grader, [but] like the average second grader. I want to admit to you this is a blind spot in my knowledge and that’s why I need you.” Vice versa experts need to let attorneys know because we assume sometimes they know a lot about the law, and to your point sometimes they’re not familiar. They might be an expert and they do a lot of reports but they don’t testify a lot. They don’t want to show vulnerability half the time either because they’re like, “I’m paid to be an expert. I’m paid hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars an hour because I know my area inside and out.” That’s fine, but you’re not a lawyer. Some of them are, but you’re not a lawyer as well. Together, we can make it work, but we have to both show vulnerability. It’s like a marriage that way.

Noah Bolmer: Let talk a bit about how—you’ve been at this for a hot minute. Let’s talk a bit about how things have changed from [since] you first got started. What have been the logistical and methodological change? I know things have moved to settlement more often. What are some of the differences between now and then vis-à-vis expert witnesses?

Carl Taylor: Yes, the pandemic was a great dividing line. That’s how I look at my career. Everything before the pandemic feels like it was like fifty years ago and I’m only forty-one. There’s that aspect of it. The way we communicate the AI piece where it’s like I now wonder are [these] the experts words? Are they just spitting things out to me and it’s getting a little bizarre in terms of some of the technology that we utilize and also the expectations. When I first started practicing, I started as a law clerk, there was a lot of experienced attorneys going out there and winning cases with poster board. At the most, they were out there dominating with a black Sharpie, Noah. Now, if you’re going to try cases, and again, I don’t do plaintiff side, but if you’re going to try a case especially from the plaintiff side you have to—you also have [to have] your master’s degree in technology. The ability to get your—it’s like Hollywood with CGI. It’s not enough to stand there in the corner and talk anymore. We need a CGI dinosaur in the background and that’s what’s happening with litigation. You need to understand and that adds complexity, because if you’re trying to incorporate that with an expert a lot of times the experts aren’t technologically, you know, they’re not technological masters. We should do it a certain way, but it’s like, “No, I’ve got my notepad.” We have to visually let the jury know through this computer that we’re going to plug in and hope it works. We’ve gone from—remember high school [when] they’d roll out the old TV’s to show you a movie.

Noah Bolmer: Oh yeah, I’ve pushed many a TV cart, absolutely.

Carl Taylor: It’s like we’ve gone from that to space age technology, and it felt like a blink. The pandemic exacerbated that because now are things so remote. We’re so comfortable with being remote.

Noah Bolmer: You bring up AI. Is AI in terms of law in general, but specifically for expert witnesses a force of evil, or a force of good or neutral? Also is this something that attorneys need to advise their experts on to say, “I don’t want you using AI to write your report” or what have you. How has it impacted the relationship between attorneys and experts?

Carl Taylor: The next few years will be fascinating, even in divorce law. I was one of the first attorneys, maybe the first to write an article about how Bitcoin was—a national article, at least that Bitcoin was something to look for in terms of discovery, because people were able to hide their money in bitcoins before it became taxable. Same thing with AI. The other day I was talking with my AI buddy, and I only got it 2 weeks ago, so I’m fascinated by it. I was a late adopter because as a writer I kind of resent it. I [have to] break down and start trying it myself. Maybe a month ago. Time moves differently when you have AI. I was talking about my business idea, and it was spitting out numbers like—if you do this and that your business might be worth like $6 million in 10 years. I was like what if my wife—I’m happily married 17 years, but what if my wife was able to subpoena this right now and say, “Carl, you [have] to pay a ton of alimony because you’re going to be worth $6 million in 10 years?” Anything that is fed into the system- not only is it machine learning it’s also possibly discoverable. The next few years could be interesting to see subpoenas of AI chat bots because they store most of the records, and you could use it for that. Like, “Are you having an affair?” Sometimes I treat this—it surprised me because I was so skeptical. I treat it like a therapist sometimes. I’m like, you won’t believe what just happened to me at lunch. The waiter had cold soup. Can you believe that? He’s like—the AI is like, “Carl, calm down. It’s just like lunch, dude.” Because AI is already better than I am as a person.

For me, I’m leery of—I would never put my client’s information even if I were talking in generalities into AI, because I’d be afraid that now it’s machine learning, it’s going to kick back some—we’ve all seen 2001 Space Odyssey. It’s like when Hal turns on us and starts to blow up our confidence. We can’t be surprised that—“Open up the space shuttle door, Hal” that it’s not going to do it. Same thing I have to tell my experts, “I don’t want you putting anything about this case into AI.”  Now, can I have surveillance on them? Do I know? Of course not. But we have to at least make sure we’re aligned on that. Maybe other people are not as skeptical or over the top afraid of like AI blowing confidences. For me, I still want to write my own motions. I still want to do my own legal work, I don’t want—although I noticed my clients are more like “AI says you might be wrong about this or that custody evaluation thing.” I’m like, “No. Trust me over AI. Or fire me and hire me. I don’t care. But don’t try and do both.”

Noah Bolmer: Speaking of Hal opening the bay doors. Is there a lot of danger with not respect to AI, but with people publishing a lot of personal stuff online? Do people, especially expert witnesses, need to think about everything that they’re posting, whether it’s adjacent to their work as an expert witness because it could come back to haunt them during a deposition, for instance, or a Daubert hearing or something to that effect? To what extent do experts need to catalog and consider the things that they are posting online, especially on social media?

Carl Taylor: There’s a lot of case law that says that if it’s out there and you don’t keep your materials private, then it’s public. It’s there. Lawyers can’t go and pretend that I’m your friend on Facebook to glom up the information from you. But if it’s out there, I can pursue it and I go back to the divorce law aspect, because that’s what I’m most comfortable with. As an expert or even as a divorce lawyer, I have to try and be careful what I put out there because I don’t want to use it against me. I have to be professional facing. Even in my field, I’ve had everything from assassination attempts on my dog, signs being knocked down with a hammer to everything in between. I’ve been threatened in a parking lot, once or twice outside a courthouse. That’s the joy of family law. For a long time, I was like, I don’t want to put any pictures of my kids up on Facebook because doing divorce law I take away custody from other people’s kids. I don’t want to have that out there. Anything you put out there especially if you talking about cases you should never be- even today with my interview you notice I never say I have been on this case. I have to talk in generalities. Experts should learn, especially when you have apps that can say, “I’m checking in here right now.” It’s not that you want to be afraid or live your life in fear, but it’s like we’re open to that. When [was growing] up, it was like, “Don’t talk to strangers. Don’t [let anybody] know where you’re going. Mind your own business.” Now, it’s like everyone in the world is [sharing], “Here’s where I am at every single minute. Here’s what I’m doing. I’m at the courthouse trying this case. I think it went—I think it kind of went poorly.” It could be like a tweet. Now, you talk about something that’s confidential in the case, now you lose the case. You get a mistrial or something because the expert didn’t follow social media best practices. To me, they’re all necessary evils. You’re wise to highlight that as something that experts should be concerned about.

Noah Bolmer: Are there any, without giving any specifics, tent pole cases in your career where an expert witness made a difference or reinforced something about doing your work as an attorney or maybe changed your mind about something? What are the important moments in your career regarding expert witness engagements?

Carl Taylor: It’s funny, but my instinct is to go to the smallest courtroom—municipal court. As a prosecutor, I tried probably like, 100 DWI, driving while intoxicated, DUI, whatever your jurisdiction calls those cases. They’re bench trials and you wouldn’t think it’s scientific, but the breathalyzer, the Alcotest that’s utilized is very specific to—the calibration has to be a certain way and there has—the log outs have to occur every few minutes. You have to know what you’re talking about, and for me, as a prosecutor, I was lucky because I didn’t have to hire an expert. I had police officers who would testify, plus, nobody’s going to pay me for me to get an expert anyway, so I was stuck with my with my officers. They usually did a good job, but there were these retired state trooper types and they would go on and get law degrees. They would be credentialed on everything under the sun, and they would be tricky to beat because all they [knew] the ins and outs of the Alcotest machine that New Jersey uses as a breathalyzer. They ate, slept, lived, and breathed this Alcotest machine. For me, it was like one problem of many in my life. I had to figure it out. And I learned there the ability of an expert going shallow, going deep but narrow. The ability to hone and hire the right expert for the job. Now, the flaw that they taught me is if you’re always going up there saying that the Alcotest sucks every single time and every single case in the state, in front of the same judges, eventually we’re all like, “We know, we know, you want to throw it out. You want every single DWI ever in the state thrown out. We get you.” That’s why I always tell experts if you see a flow in the case, be honest about it. Even understand you’re going to gain more credibility, and it’s all about credibility, if you move forward with the attitude of here’s where our case is weak, but here’s where it’s strong. Because most of the time, unless it’s a criminal case, you don’t have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. You just [have to] prove it’s more likely that not that your side is right.

Noah Bolmer: Speaking of things going wrong or not necessarily the way that you expect, how should expert witnesses treat those contentious, difficult moments when they’re asked a question they weren’t expecting, have their words twisted, or become uncomfortable due to some factor that the other side is forcing upon them. What are the techniques that experts should use to remain calm, in the moment, and not stressed?

Carl Taylor: On that front it’s similar to any witness. Before you speak, take five seconds. What I’m not doing on this podcast. Take five seconds, formulate your thoughts, and make sure you understand the question. [Many] times, it comes down to an expert who doesn’t understand the questions being asked. That can happen on direct. Then I’m like, “Oh no, no, no.” On cross they’re like, “Oh, the door just opened for me, perfect. I can now start to attack”. And then it’s like anything else, if you’re on the defensive, you start to lose your mystique. It is what my kid’s generation calls the rizz. That’s necessary out there in the world. You lose the charisma. So, to me it’s make sure you always take five seconds. That also allows your attorney the chance to object if it’s an unfair question because you shouldn’t feel like you’re out there in a lion’s den on the wrong side of the zoo, and you’re trapped. It can quickly feel that way if you have a tough attorney on the other side and you’re getting cross-examined. [Much] of it comes down to, like everything in life, modulating your emotions. Easier said than done. Teaching or prepping experts about the questions they can expect so they don’t get tripped up. Then saying, “Don’t get—” again back to the arrogance because that’s a cliche about experts, but it’s a cliche for a reason. It’s only 10 to 20% who give a bad name to the rest. Lawyers are known as arrogant as well, but not every lawyer is arrogant. I’ve met at least two or three who aren’t. So at the end of the day, it’s like, “Don’t get your back up and start trying to prove how smart you are. You’re here on an assignment. It’s like you’re a green beret. You’ve been dropped in and you have all the training, but you’re not there to prove how great your training is. You’re there to accomplish the mission, so always keep the mission in mind.”

Noah Bolmer: Before we wrap up, do you have any last tips or advice for either attorneys working with expert witnesses or newer expert witnesses?

Carl Taylor: My advice for expert witnesses themselves is to consider their marketing because I’m going to go back to the biggest problem I see. Maybe it’s a New Jersey family law thing, but there are three or four people that monopolize [many] of the categories and it makes it hard to schedule trials and work with these people. To me, we need more experts that aren’t known as wild cards, and you’re not going to do that by sitting at home reading the textbook. You’re going to have to go out there and write the textbook. You’re going to have to go out there and mingle with attorneys. It’s like marketing, you have to go to your potential clients are. For experts, unfortunately you chose to be an expert. You have to mingle with attorneys now. So come out to the bar events. Be known. Start to become trusted and start creating these authority assets like my business books for experts [are] helping people do. Shameless plugs. That will help you stand out and will get your name out there. Then it’s no longer twenty percent of people who take up eighty percent of the slots and you can build better because [many] times I think people who don’t do that and don’t have the marketing behind them, it’s not that they’re worse experts, they’re just unknown. To me, that’s the saddest thing that any expert could be is somebody who’s an expert in something and doesn’t have enough marketing or time behind them to show they’re an authentic authority.

As for younger attorneys, having done this now for at least a minute, you have to trust your gut. Even if—you’re not always going to know the law the way you should. You’re not always going to know the facts the way you should, but your gut, the gut that you have inside you as a human, not just as a lawyer. If you think during your call with an expert that this person is trying to pull the wool over your eyes, they don’t know what they’re talking about, or you just get a bad vibe. The times I regret hiring an expert and it’s very few of my career, have been the times where I knew. I should have known or deep down I knew even from the moment of the engagement. I’m just going with this person because they’re there and I can’t find anybody better. That’s how you lose the case in the future. That moment when you didn’t trust your gut, make sure you take the time, go to someone like Round Table Group and if you can’t figure out the expert on your own. Get it figured out. I’m going to do a shameless plug for you too. See, I’m a natural. That’s how you move forward and have a great relationship in the best interest of your client.

Noah Bolmer: Sage advice, Mr. Taylor, thank you for joining us today.

Carl Taylor: Thank you. I appreciate it.

Noah Bolmer: And thank you as always to our listeners for joining us for another edition of Engaging Experts. Cheers.

Carl Taylor, Esq. Founder of Books for Experts

Carl Taylor is an attorney, expert, and professional publisher focused on helping attorneys create authority assets. Mr. Taylor holds a JD from Rutgers.