In this episode . .  .

Whether in arbitration or a jury trial, it is always best to assume that your audience is laypersons, according to Ms. Torossian. No matter the factfinder, communicating your expertise in a manner that is easily understood is a crucial skill for all experts.

Check out the entire episode for our discussion on creating demonstratives, experts in arbitration, and changing timeframes.

Transcript

Note: Transcript has been lightly edited for clarity

Host: Noah Bolmer, Round Table Group

Guest: Tatevik Torossian, Director at Grobstein Teeple, LLP

Noah Bolmer: Welcome to Engaging Experts. I’m your host, Noah Bolmer, and I’m excited to welcome Tatevik Torossian to the show. Ms. Torossian is Director of Gropstein Teeple LLP, a litigation consulting and forensic accounting group. Additionally, she is a forensic CPA with over 15 years of experience and a sought-after presenter. Ms. Torossian holds a BS in accounting and business management from Cal State, Los Angeles. Ms. Torossian, thank you for joining me today on Engaging Experts.

Tatevik Torossian: It’s a pleasure. Thank you for having me.

Noah Bolmer: You’ve been a forensic accountant since 2009. How did you first become involved in expert witnessing?

Tatevik Torossian: Yes, since 2009. That’s correct. I would say that I always liked investigative work. At one point, I considered becoming an investigative journalist. However, a friend discouraged me, stating that it’s a bit risky and it may not be a positive experience if you want to settle later and have a family. He suggested that I look into accounting. I did and then discovered forensics at some point. It was a perfect match, combining numbers, which I liked, and investigative work.

Noah Bolmer: Tell me about the first time that you got called for an expert witness appointment. Were you looking for that? Is that something you were advertising for? Did you even know about expert witness work? How did that go down?

Tatevik Torossian: I did not know about expert witness work. I did financial accounting during my college days when I was studying for the CPA exam. Then, upon completing the exam in 2009, I connected with a boutique firm in Pasadena, and all they did was forensic accounting, which was quite a new area for me. When I was introduced to it, I embraced it, and I have not looked back. I have not stopped doing that. Initially, during those beginning years, I was supported the partners at that boutique firm, meaning I would dig into the cases, analysis, and reporting to support their cases meaning I would dig into the cases, analysis, and reporting in their support of the case. I did not testify directly. However, throughout the years, I became excited about testifying myself, which occurred in 2022, when I was designated as the expert directly.

Noah Bolmer: [Many] people have a lot of different preparation techniques when it comes to depositions and cross-examination. Some people like to cram their expert witness report the night before. Some people like to caffeinate themselves or do yoga. Do you have any pre-trial or pre-deposition routine that works for you?

Tatevik Torossian: Yes, know your report. Know your analysis and not the 24 hours before, but the week before, the several weeks before, and hopefully, counsel had retained you early enough to sufficiently dig into all the records and documents that came your way. Prepare to address any strong points of the opposing side against you.

Noah Bolmer: You talk about making sure that there’s sufficient time. This is a mantra that I’ve heard from [many] expert witnesses. “Attorneys, please give us enough time.” Do you typically have sufficient time to do everything that you need as thoroughly as it needs to be done in an expert witness engagement? Or are there certain occasions that you wish the attorney would have engaged you earlier?

Tatevik Torossian: The latter is correct. Often, experts are engaged later in the process, but there are many cases where they are engaged months in advance. In my recent trial case, we were engaged the year before, and it was a tremendous success for the client.

Noah Bolmer: When you say the year prior, were you aware that you had that much time, or was it something that got drawn out that long?

Tatevik Torossian: Good question. Initially, they thought the settlement or negotiation talks would [last] six months. As of the time of the engagement, six months after that. Those negotiations failed when the time came, and as a result, the trial was scheduled within months.

Noah Bolmer: Do you find that a significant number or most of your engagements actually move towards settlement?

Tatevik Torossian: That’s the preferred goal because it’s cost-effective, and in this case, the client, the plaintiff—I was supporting the plaintiff side. The plaintiff had offered to settle the case many times. It was the defendant who opposed the settlement, and when all those failed, the trial commenced. The end result was all to the plaintiff’s benefit. The defendant missed the settlement opportunity. The same thing happened again in my last arbitration trial. The defendant refused to settle, and the arbitration was in favor of the plaintiff. While many try to settle, it depends on the case, I would say. When it does go to trial, one side prevails, and you hope you’re on the right side.

Noah Bolmer: You’re right. A lot of these cases are definitely moving towards settlement. How does that affect expert witnesses? Does that take work away from you when a trial—when ultimately attorneys are trying to push something towards settlement because you won’t have the opportunity to do as many depositions or be in cross-examination, all that sort of stuff? If so, is that something that you protect yourself from by adding terms to your engagement letter such as non-refundable retainers and items like that? How do you protect yourself to make sure that you get paid when some of these actions move towards a rapid settlement?

Tatevik Torossian: Thank you for asking that. It’s important to note that we bill on time spent and material. We bill on an ongoing monthly basis so whatever work is performed up to the date of settlement, it’s expected that the client will take care of it.

Noah Bolmer: Sure.

Tatevik Torossian: In other words, you won’t incur additional billable time because depositions and trials are expensive. Whatever work is done up to the point of settlement, that’s expected to be compensated. The expert is expected to be compensated, and I usually never put any special terms and contracts about non-refundable retainers and whatnot. It’s usually whatever time has been—time and material has been spent and incurred for the case. We bill that on a monthly basis.

Noah Bolmer: One of the things that you mentioned was arbitration. [Many] newer expert witnesses don’t know that expert witnesses are also used in alternative dispute resolution, such as arbitrations. Tell me how these matters are different for an expert witness from an arbitration versus a normal trial.

Tatevik Torossian: Yes, for example, the trial I was in June, and was supposed to be five days, it ended up extending over a three-week period. It was a jury trial so that means there are twelve strangers deciding your case. Twelve citizens that may not have any accounting background. Most likely they don’t, and most likely they don’t keep a checkbook. They don’t reconcile their bank accounts. Those are all foreign thoughts and ideas to most of them sitting there. Most likely no legal background either. That’s one big aspect of a jury trial. You have a layman audience that you need to communicate your findings to.

Then, you have arbitration where it’s a judge, most likely a retired judge, that is presiding over the case, who will tend to have more knowledge and background in a financial aspect and legal aspect. Likely has been exposed to more cases has heard a lot of cases so the audience is different. However, I find it that my communication remains similar. I will communicate as simply and clearly as possible. In my view even if the trier of fact is the judge sitting across [from me] I would still assume that I need to explain in the simplest form possible. The main difference is the jurors versus a judge presiding.

Noah Bolmer: Assuming that everybody is a layperson, even when you have a fairly sophisticated judge, they might not know all of the intricacies and ins and outs of your profession. What are some of the techniques that you use to communicate these complex topics in a way that’s easily digestible to laypersons?

Tatevik Torossian: So topics— it would come down to a dispute. It’s a dispute about money. Many times it’s money, where it came from, and where it went. If it went to the wrong parties, how much? It comes down to how we can demonstrate this money in the simplest form. The party had X amount, now they have Y, and therefore they’re entitled to the difference. In my trial case, it was heavily based on a bank statement analysis and ultimately, the jurors relied on that fact that everything was documented in the bank statements. There was no lying as to what happened because it was traced all to bank statements. Opposing counsel chose to reinstate historical invoices without consideration, for example, for bank transactions. One is an internally created document, the other one is an external third-party document, and you have to decide which one is more reliable. Choosing most reliable source information and presenting it.

Noah Bolmer: Have you used demonstratives in your field? In other words, charts, graphs, pictures, videos, things like that.

Tatevik Torossian: Yes, in the trial for the jurors, especially, it was extremely helpful to use a simple demonstrative where it showed $100 was deposited. $50 went out. $50 was left. It should have been split in two parts between the two partners. It was not. It was over 3,000 transactions and many disbursements that occurred, but we condensed it to one line item and condensed the deposit into one line item. Don’t even break it down by year. Just the total in the claim period and the total that went out. Just one number came in, one number went out and what remained, that’s the number they wrote down. If you have components like adding interest or adding unpaid costs, again, it’s just the one number. It’s 3% on that. They know exactly what they’re looking at and what that number represents.

Noah Bolmer: Is this something that you tend to produce yourself? Does your firm make these, or do you use third parties to create demonstratives?

Tatevik Torossian: Usually for complex cases, third parties. In this particular case, the legal team did an amazing job. They had an internal team that was assisting with the demonstratives and they were helpful and resourceful.

Noah Bolmer: How does that process work? Tell me about the types of communication. I’m interested in these demonstratives. How they’re produced and how a picture can be worth a thousand words [that] lay jurors can understand when they see the best demonstrative. Tell me about how you communicate to the party that creates them.

Tatevik Torossian: I finalize my report. My analysis, which would have schedules—I would have a summary schedule of my opinions. It would have the sub-schedules with the support so all of that information gets submitted before a deposition and before trial. If you have any revisions between your deposition and trial, you resubmit, which you should do most certainly if additional information becomes available and you need to correct the opinion. It’s important to present the most accurate testimony possible on the trial date. Once my report is submitted, then the team that works on the demonstratives has access to that information and they work off of my summary schedule. They pick the information off of my summary schedule and make demonstratives. Many times, they will use icons if it’s a transfer that went into some personal type of an expense. There might be an icon representing that visually, a hotel image or something that would stand out. Ultimately, it’s not about presenting multiple lines on the screen, but it’s just condensing it to two to three items that they can visualize. Most jurors were taking notes. That was impressive.

Noah Bolmer: [Many] times, the other side [is] trying to impeach your credibility. They’re trying to impeach what you’re saying in respect to the facts of the case, and maybe even your demonstratives. How do you deal with the other side throwing a few left hooks at you and saying, “This person doesn’t know what they’re talking about.” What types of strategies do you use to deflect that and prevent it from happening in the first place?

Tatevik Torossian: It has happened. Number one, would be know the opposing side’s strong point, and be prepared to address them. One way to know is I read my own deposition transcripts leading up to the trial several times, in fact three times. For example, I noted that one number was different in my Excel that I was looking at live than what I had testified to in my deposition. It wasn’t a material number because it was not the damages figure that I was calculating, but it was a comparable number. When I realized that in a later pre-trial exhibit submission, somehow my Excel links had changed and I had not caught it. I was ready to address that point if it came up in my cross-examination and it did. They brought it up, even though it was not something that—it was not the damages figure. It was irrelevant, but they brought it up and they said, “This changed. You testified this and now in this trial exhibit, shows it’s $300,000 off. What happened?” I was ready for it. I said, “It must have been a math error. I did not intend for it to change. Something happened with Excel, but the important point is that it does not affect my opinions in any way.”

Noah Bolmer: Getting out in front of it and being ready for it is your advice. That’s great advice, especially when it was an immaterial error, which can happen when we’re using all these sorts of software. Let’s back up a little bit and talk about a few of the more general areas of expert witnessing. What do you find important about being an expert witness or put another way, why are expert witnesses important to have?

Tatevik Torossian: They make or break the case because they tell the story and the story is substantiated as a result of their experience. Being the expert, you have this ability and skill set to be creative and understand how damages can be quantified in a case that may not be so obvious, which happened in my arbitration case. It was one accounting method that was compared to a post-incident accounting method by the opposing expert, and it should not have been because the two accounting methods were practiced by two different entities. One entity could bill on contingency fee basis, where the other entity was forbidden by law from billing on a contingency basis. It had to be time and material. Yet the opposing expert compared the revenues and assumed the decline in post-incident revenues or billings was due to economic factors unrelated to the incident and assumed there is no loss compared to the pre-incident billings. The two billings had a completely different dynamic, and you were comparing apples to oranges. In other words, it was not the same. An expert can—a true expert, I would say, would identify those subtle differences, and paint the picture of what happened and present the findings.

Noah Bolmer: In that case, were you the plaintiff’s or the defendant’s witness?

Tatevik Torossian: I was on the plaintiff’s witness.

Noah Bolmer: Did they give some of their objections via a rebuttal report? Was that something that you got to see through discovery so were you ready for it?

Tatevik Torossian: That is correct, yes.

Noah Bolmer: Tell me a bit about that. On either side, as a plaintiff receiving a rebuttal report from the defendant or working for the defendant writing a rebuttal report against the plaintiff, tell me about the dynamics there.

Tatevik Torossian: In this particular case, their main point was—they would rebut without offering an alternative. That was a big thing because if you’re rebutting, what’s the alternative in my opinion? What would you do instead? That was not offered. It was simply a rebuttal. “The rate she used is not reasonable.” Okay, what’s a reasonable rate? The actual difference in billing practices was not even addressed. The labeling was used by the opposing expert as this is how the economic damages should be measured, because the post-incident billings represent what was billed and generated. Therefore, it’s the amount that would be technically due, but the billing practice was not addressed. He completely ignored that meaningful difference. In the end, the arbitrator understood and awarded according to our analysis, which was great.

Noah Bolmer: [Many] experts when they’re first getting started don’t understand the complexities and size of these trial teams can be. There’s not always one expert witness. There might be a damage expert. There might be a forensic accountant. There might be all these different experts on the same side. In addition, there might be paralegals, assistants, and multiple attorneys. They can be quite large. To what extent do expert witnesses work with other members of the trial team?

Tatevik Torossian: The trial team is important. I would say the trial that I was in that lasted several weeks, it was imperative for me to stay in contact and communication with the counsel, co-counsel, the paralegal, like you said, on a daily basis to stay on track on the testimonies that were being offered throughout that time, reviewing transcripts as needed. And also staying on top of your analysis. Your work does not stop. I continued reviewing transactions. I continued reviewing my report and offering support even throughout that process. When it comes to working with other experts, in the arbitration case, I worked with our valuation expert in my firm. I do have a valuation background however it was important for me to ensure that the valuation was accurate and in line. I worked closely with the appraiser in my firm, which was a great experience. It strengthened our testimony and was well supported and documented as a result. I made sure I spent the time to understand all the components of offering the valuation also as part of the analysis.

Noah Bolmer: Let’s talk about relationships. When you are first getting started in a new engagement, what are the things that expert witnesses and attorneys should be doing to get off on the right foot and then maintain that momentum to have a great, productive, efficient, and effective expert witness engagement? What are the qualities?

Tatevik Torossian: It’s important, number one, to know what your deadlines are first and if discovery is open, because that will drive what additional information the expert would need and if you still have the ability to request that information through counsel, through subpoena. The first questions I always ask is what are the timelines we’re looking at? When does discovery close and what other experts are involved? For example, a vocational rehabilitation expert on a personal injury case. A real estate expert on a real estate dispute case. A corporate governance expert on a partnership dispute case. It will make a difference because many times you could defer certain basis in your opinions to these other experts.

Noah Bolmer: Absolutely. Have you had any bad experiences or are there any red flags that give you pause on whether or not you should accept engagement in the first place or things that once you have started that engagement that gives you pause and make you want to re-evaluate that engagement?

Tatevik Torossian: I would say it’s important to see what legal team you’re working with, what type of information they’re presenting to you, and what case expectations they have. If your initial assessment indicates things that may not look quite so, I go the route of communicating that information and establishing and understanding that I believe this is how the case might evolve as opposed to what counsel may have ideas on. I’ve also seen where certain experiences of the legal team are questionable, where I’m asked about the types of forms that might need to be filed. As long as they do their side of work, maybe they’re a new legal team, gaining their feet on the ground, and establishing trial experience. I don’t mind contributing to their knowledge and experience in that way. That’s always nice.

Noah Bolmer: Have you worked in a variety of different venues? On one axis, different states, and different levels of government. On the other axis, we have things like criminal versus torts, and things like that. Have you worked in a variety of different venues? If so, what are some of the differences for expert witnesses working in a new venue that [they] haven’t worked in before?

Tatevik Torossian: Federal court is different from state courts. In federal court, you submit different types of reports. You have to submit a narrative report that is pursuant to Rule 26, the civil code. It’s a rigorous report, so your opinions have to be pursuant to those regulations. Whereas in state court, you have the option of submitting just analysis exhibits as your report, which is helpful because when you don’t put things in writing it gives you more of an opportunity to dive into the analysis. When I have the exhibits, know your report regardless. It should not be the different. I always look at it as one—if I’m submitting it to state court or to federal court, I look at it as one and the same. In family court, however, things are quite different. That’s a different, entirely different venue from state and federal court for civil procedures. Family court has its own- I always say I have to wear a different hat, essentially, because it’s different dynamics altogether. Then, there’s the mediation and arbitration. In mediation, I heard an attorney say that mediation is the last time the client makes a decision for themselves. That’s the last step. After that, either a judge makes a decision, the jurors make a decision, or a combination of both. I’ve been in mediations involving family law matters. It takes a long time, but I’ve seen less successful endings in mediations. Arbitration is another step. It has its own merits and sometimes it tends to be—the whole purpose, is for it to be less costly than a trial, but the trial is nice because you get your verdict right there and then.

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

Tatevik Torossian: Communicate with the expert, keep them in the loop on developments and updates, be aware of the strategy of the case, know your documents and records, know your opinions, and the work performed, even though you have support team assisting. You’re not a- many times you have many helping you on a case, but know your analysis, know your report, be prepared on various fronts, and try to see different scenarios that could come up in that set of opinions.

Noah Bolmer: Sage advice. Ms. Torossian, thank you for joining me today.

Tatevik Torossian: Of course. Thank you for having me.

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

Tatevik Torossian CPA, CFF, CFE, MAFF, Director at Grobstein Teeple, LLP

Tatevik Torossian is a Director at Grobstein Teeple LLP, a litigation consulting and forensic accounting group. Additionally, she is a forensic CPA with over 15 years of experience and the sought-after presenter. Ms. Torossian holds a BS in accounting and business management from Cal State, Los Angeles.