In this episode:

What does it take to bridge the gap between deep technical expertise and effective courtroom testimony? Dr. Kirk McDaniel, with over 40 years of experience in mining and underground spaces, pulls back the curtain on the fascinating world of expert witnessing. The conversation reveals crucial insights for both aspiring expert witnesses and attorneys who work with them. Dr. McDaniel emphasizes the cardinal rule of expert testimony: “Know your lane and stick to it.” This principle has guided his case selection, leading him to decline opportunities outside his domain of mining engineering and safety. His approach has protected him from credibility challenges while allowing him to deliver authoritative opinions in his field.

Whether you’re a seasoned expert, an attorney who works with technical specialists, or simply curious about how complex technical matters translate to courtroom settings, this conversation offers a rare glimpse into the strategic thinking behind effective expert testimony. The takeaway? Expertise alone isn’t enough—understanding boundaries, maintaining professional standards, and fostering clear communication ultimately determine an expert’s courtroom value.

Note: Transcript has been lightly edited for clarity

Host: Noah Bolmer, Round Table Group

Guest: Dr. Kirk McDaniel, Principal, Lamphead Safety Consulting

Noah Bolmer: Welcome to Engaging Experts. I’m your host, Noah Bolmer. And today I’m excited to welcome Dr. Kirk McDaniel to the show. Dr. McDaniel is the owner of Lamphead Safety Consulting, LLC, a consulting firm for mining and other high-risk industries. Additionally, he is a board member for the International Academy of Mine Safety and Health. Dr. McDaniel holds a PhD from the Colorado School of Mines. Dr. McDaniel, thank you so much for joining me here today.

Dr. Kirk McDaniel: Thank you very much. Nice to be here.

Noah Bolmer: Of course, let’s jump into it. You have over 40 years’ experience in mining and in other underground spaces. How did you first become involved in expert witnessing?

Dr. Kirk McDaniel:                                              

Well, in one of my more recent assignments, I was with the Colorado School of Mines as part of their faculty. Occasionally, we would get in queries through the department asking if anybody was interested in or knew of someone who would be interested in a particular case, usually an accident or a fatality. I hadn’t previously done expert witness work, but while I was there, I thought to myself, well, I could be of value. I could address this. I started looking for them and looking for that opportunity. And that’s how I got into it.

Noah Bolmer: When you first got started, did you know about expert witnessing in general? Was that even a topic that you were aware of?

Dr. Kirk McDaniel: Well, I was aware of it in general. I was not aware of it in the specific context of how I would apply my trade, how I could be of value or benefit, and some of the quirks and nuances of how you actually go about it. I think everybody’s generally aware of expert witnesses. We see them on TV and in dramas and so on and so forth. But that’s not reality.

Noah Bolmer: A lot of people don’t know how these things first become started, and typically an attorney or representative for the attorney gives a new expert a call, and they ask them a whole bunch of questions, and the expert asks them a whole bunch of questions. They kind of vet each other. It’s a co-vetting process between the parties. Tell me about some of those first questions that you are typically asked for a new engagement, and what are some of the questions that you like to ask to make sure that it’s going to be a good engagement?

Dr. Kirk McDaniel: Well, one of the processes I go through, there’s a process I use separate from Round Table [Group] where they’ll send you an email inquiry [stating], “Hey, we think you have a case that could be of interest, and you’re required to go and answer some basic questions about the case.” And then tell you whether or not you have a conflict and that sort of thing. And then that ultimately goes to the attorney somewhere, and they decide if your answers are worthy of then following up with an actual interview. The interview process is usually at that point the opportunity to find out what is it that really happened here in the case, because sometimes the vetting questions are not very telling when they lead more questions than answers. It’s an opportunity to talk with the attorney, find out what really happened and where they think their case is going and how my background could be of interest. Sometimes it is misleading. In one case, which I was recently inquired upon, the direction I thought that the client was going was not what I thought was a good direction.

On the other hand, this was their case. I didn’t feel I had an opportunity to serve. That my area of expertise or my opinions did not match with their needs. Turns out they hired me because I told them, “I think your strategy is wrong” while I was on the phone. “And here’s why.” Now, is there value to their strategy? I don’t know. We’ll find out. But I also made it pretty clear, I didn’t think their strategy was all there was, and I think there was more to it, and hopefully they’ll be willing to engage on that.

Noah Bolmer: To what extent should experts become involved in strategy?

Dr. Kirk McDaniel: Well, after the fact, they very much become involved in strategy. While you’re working on getting engaged, you have to learn the art of subtlety and give the potential client enough information to demonstrate that you have a pretty good idea of what their case is about. That you have a background in that case, or you have experience in that particular area, and that you have therefore a unique perspective that can be of value. Without giving away too much of your expertise. Because you haven’t yet been engaged, you learn to save some things back that will ultimately be of value. And you kind of learn to dangle that carrot in front of people.

Noah Bolmer: Do you get a lot of last-minute engagements where they’re like, “You know, you’re the perfect person for the job and we know that you can do this, but also I need a report in three days?”

Dr. Kirk McDaniel: I haven’t had many of those. I have had one which we recently wrapped up at least in terms of the current stage, where, yeah, there was a report due in three weeks. And that can be pretty intense. I know some experts, not myself, that will charge a premium for that, a rush job. Most of the cases I’m engaged with are early in the discovery process, if even having started the discovery process. So, you have an opportunity to be much more engaged in discussing with the client, the attorney, they become your partner in this process because they don’t necessarily understand anything about your industry. They’re representing a client. Part of your job is to educate them and to help them figure out what the strategy is.

Noah Bolmer: Let’s talk a little bit about documentation. Typically, in a new engagement, there is a whole lot of case materials that can come your way. Do you typically read everything that comes for you and hope that they have done some of the work weeding out the chaff, you know, from what you’ll actually need and things that are just kind of there in case you need it? Or do you have to spend a lot of time going through case materials and making sure that this is actually relevant to my opinion?

Dr. Kirk McDaniel: It’s a mixed bag of nuts. I’ve had cases where the client only sent me some of the documentation that they felt was relevant. Only to find out after the fact that they should have sent me more. Because now they’re doing my job for me. And trying to decide what’s relevant in that particular case turns out they forgot to send me some stuff that was relevant, only I didn’t know it because I didn’t have a chance to see it.

Noah Bolmer: Sure.

Dr. Kirk McDaniel: It got corrected. On the other extreme, a case that I’m currently engaged on, where I can’t discuss it, we’re down to almost, 15,000 pages of case documentation. And I look through every page of it. Now, in many cases, I can look—what I’ll do is a first pass on—I’ll look at a document, and I’ll decide, does it have any bearing? I’m always hopeful that they’ll have done the legwork to separate the wheat from the chafe. Usually not the case. I then take a first pass to determine whether the document, whatever that is, is of any real value. I use a kind of a red light, green light system that I’ll make notations on. And I’ll go through down our first pass and anything that looks like it might be relevant, I’ll flag for a better, a deeper pass. I’ve also found in some of those thousands upon thousands upon thousands of pages, duplicate documents, sometimes 15 or 20 different versions of the same thing. At some point, it can get a little irritating that they didn’t really look at it, but that’s fine. I’m happy to make a note of it.

Then I go back and make a second pass to make notes. And then I’ll go back and make a third pass to see, okay, what do the notes mean? What’s my observations relative to the notes? What are my opinions? How does it help me form a strategy?

Noah Bolmer: Absolutely. Let’s talk about strategy. One of the things that almost every expert has to do for just about every engagement is to write a report. Tell me a little bit about your report writing strategy. How do you like to go about assimilating all of your content? Do you like to have indices? Do you like to have contents? How do you organize your report writing?

Dr. Kirk McDaniel: Well, again, it’s a mixed bag of nuts, kind of depends on the specifics of the case. I tend to take a lot of notes on sticky tabs and they’re all over the documentation. And then I’ve gone through on that second or third pass and I’ve been transcribed those into my case notes, which while I’m writing case notes, I also find myself writing opinions on those case notes. And I spent some time here just recently going through a large amount of documentation when I had some peace and quiet and thinking about, “Okay, what does it really mean?” In this particular case, I elected to form a series of what I would call buckets. And I started putting information in the various buckets. And those buckets were themes that I’m going to bring to bear in my report, things that I find a common theme, a thread. It’s going to have an impact on my ability to apply it on the case. It depends on whether—there are some cases that are more regulatorily driven, where I can cite chapter and verse from the regulations. And I can say this is why this is right or wrong. Other cases are more esoteric. They require a bit more finesse. Ultimately the job of the expert is to be able to tell a good story. Whether— and if you aren’t— a piece of advice to the expert the person who wants again if you’re not good at writing you need to get good at writing because your opinions don’t mean anything if you can’t convey them on paper in a way that makes sense to the layperson

Noah Bolmer: What are some of the techniques that you employ to be a good storyteller how can experts convey some technical stuff sometimes to people who are, as you say, ostensibly lay persons in a way that is both understandable and also compelling.

Dr. Kirk McDaniel: I usually try to include a personal component about the person that I’m representing, or rather a person my client represents. Or the company that my client—if I’m working on behalf of the plaintiff as an example, or they got a defendant, I try to make it personal. I try to bring that person into the story as the victim, as an example, what happened to this victim? Why? How has it changed their life? And part of that’s the job of the attorney, but also partly my job is to relay my expertise in my field, which is mining, mine safety, so on and so forth, as to how they were impacted. On another recent case, my one of my jobs was to educate the court on what mining means. So, I wrote a whole series of sections talking about different elements of mining. And I have a gift of gab. I’m a very good storyteller. I can—you’d want to keep it less technical and more generic if you can. So that you can compel people to your perspective.

Noah Bolmer: Is it different interfacing with a judge or with the court in general than it is with lay jurors? Is there any difference in the techniques that you use to quote unquote, tell a good story to laypersons compared to the judge?

Dr. Kirk McDaniel: Well, not for me. Now, I have never faced a jury. I have faced a judge. I think from my perspective, I think my job is the same, [it] is to educate. And I write a story with the intent of educating whoever it is that’s going to be listening. But I haven’t had very many juries. We— I guess my track record— is we win our cases before it ever gets to—and keeping in mind that about 98% of all civil cases settle out of court.

Noah Bolmer: Natural.

Dr. Kirk McDaniel: So, part of it is to tell a good enough story that the other side [considers], besides “It’s time to go to mediation.”

Noah Bolmer: As an expert with a fairly broad field, tell me how you go about remaining an expert in your field, because expertise isn’t just what you know, but it’s how you continue to learn and how you can continue to stay on top of the changes in a potentially dynamic field?

Dr. Kirk McDaniel: Well, in my case, I stay active in my profession, which is mining engineering, through my professional society, which is the Society of Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration. I stay active within divisions within that organization that focus on safety. I serve as indicated on the International Academy Board of Trustees, for the academy, and they will oversee a process called the Certified Mine Safety Professional. I have plenty of opportunities to stay relevant. I don’t necessarily always have to learn something new, but it’s always good to keep it fresh. Keep it in good perspective.

Noah Bolmer: Let’s talk a little bit about getting ready. So, you know, there’s trials, there’s depositions, there’s the quote unquote, big day that you’re going to come across as an expert witness. What are some of the preparation techniques that work for you and that attorneys use to get you ready for the big day? Some attorneys use mock cross-examination, for instance, or some expert witnesses like to review everything, kind of cram the morning before, the night before. What works for you?

Dr. Kirk McDaniel: The only thing I do is to review my own report. And if my report is stipulating, my report is sufficiently detailed and I did my work and it has sufficient references, I review my own report. That way, if anyone asks, what did you do to prepare? I could review my own work. And I’m not setting myself up for, “Okay, I reviewed every single document that was ever [presented]” because then that opens up me to cross examination on every single document.

Noah Bolmer: Sure.

Dr. Kirk McDaniel: So, I reviewed my own report and that’s that. And I stick to my report.

Noah Bolmer: Okay. Tell me a little bit more about that. What do you mean by “stick to your own report”?

Dr. Kirk McDaniel: Well, again, I don’t—I form an opinion, and I write that down in a report. And now I do say in my engagements, I’m always open and I reserve the right to change my opinion if someone presents me with information that would contradict my prior findings. It’s never happened. So, what I mean is understand the material, understand your perspective. Now, as an expert, I want to write a report that is grounded in evidence. That I can point to specific pieces of documentation that make the—give me the foundation of my opinion. Now, as an expert, certified by the court, I don’t have to prove anything, okay? I can go out and say that the moon is flat, it’s made out of Cheez Whiz, and it’s populated by unicorns. And I learned that through my years of experience in the industry. And I’ve encountered experts in other cases that apparently will say just about anything, presumably because they’re getting paid. I won’t do that. I will present a strong case for my client, but in only a case that I truly believe in, and that I can ground in the evidence and that I can connect the dots. Now, sometimes the dots are a little fuzzy and you have to be a good storyteller to make sure that you can connect the circumstances, but I won’t make up information out of thin air.

Noah Bolmer: Is that part of the calculus that you make when you’re deciding whether or not to accept the case in the first place, if this is something that I can truly get behind?

Dr. Kirk McDaniel: I think you have to be able to get behind it in theory. At that point, you don’t have much to go on other than a gut feel. I had a case that was presented to me here not too long ago. Some gentlemen were working in a surface coal plant that had been decommissioned, and the basis of the case was that they had been asked to start disassembling it, and I’m not sure exactly what they were doing. It sounds like they started to cut it up in little pieces, and it collapsed on them, killed them both. Now that, just from the basics of what they told me, I replied back to the engaging organization, which was not Round Table [Group], but another, and told them I thought that they needed someone who’s more of a structural engineer. I didn’t see a strong nexus between my background and my beliefs and what the case was needing or what they thought they needed. And so, I called them, and they went off and found somebody else. Same with a client that I recently told their strategy was wrong, but yet here we are.

Noah Bolmer: Absolutely. Do you find yourself turning down a significant number of cases in general?

Dr. Kirk McDaniel: No, I wouldn’t say significant. I find myself giving an honest assessment as to whether I think my background is sufficient. I wouldn’t say turning them down because that implies that I’m offered the role, more likely getting weeded out in the early part. Again, in the early process, you spend five minutes replying to their email and answering a few questions, and then maybe you never hear from them again, and that’s fine.

Noah Bolmer: Fair enough.

Dr. Kirk McDaniel: I find that once I have a very high track record, once I’m able to engage with the attorney, my track record is at the 800, or I’m batting 800.

Noah Bolmer: Not bad. How important is it that your side, quote unquote, wins the case? Is that something that you like to track? Because a lot of the time as expert witnesses, you know, we don’t know the final disposition of the case. We do our part and then move on to the next thing. How often are you checking up on how the case turns out? Is this something that you reconnect with the attorney about?

Dr. Kirk McDaniel: What I can. It’s always interesting to know if your efforts have helped them, and you usually have a pretty good feel for it by the time your services are no longer needed. I was surprised on one case I worked on five or six years ago in [an] out of state, it was still ongoing. They hadn’t settled it yet. You know, I don’t have any personal skin in the game. And as an expert, you don’t have any financial skin in that game. You do your job, you’re compensated, you move on. It’s nice to know, though, that your efforts can help win a case for a client, particularly if you feel it’s a case that’s righteous.

Noah Bolmer: You’ve brought up Round Table Group a couple of times. Do expert witness referral agencies help your practice?

Dr. Kirk McDaniel: Oh absolutely. Finding cases, spending time working a case is bad enough. Finding time to find a case on your own, that’d be a horrendous job to do. So, the advantage of brokerages like Round Table [Group], or there’s other smaller firms that help you find a case. “Here, we have a case we think you’d be perfect for.” That saves you the legwork of having to go out and do marketing. So, they are absolutely an essential part, particularly if you’re, maybe you’re a small outfit like myself, I’m just a single proprietor. If you’ve got a big firm that does this and you have maybe over years, you’ve built up a reputation of people calling you, but I like having the brokerages present me with potential opportunities. Provided that their terms and conditions are agreeable.

Noah Bolmer: Naturally. Let’s talk about trial teams for a moment. So, a lot of the time an expert witness will get engaged and they find themselves part of a larger trial team. There might be paralegals, there might be other attorneys, there might be assistants, there might be any number of people who are on the same trial team as you. To what extent, if any, do you interface with the other members of a trial team other than the primary attorney who hired you?

Dr. Kirk McDaniel: It varies. On one case that we recently wrapped to a certain extent, I was fairly engaged with other members of the team early on because that was that case where we had a real short lead. So, we have a lot of discussions over the phone, over Zoom on some of the nuances of the case. I found that very engaging. Then I was without him for months and months. On one of the cases I’m currently on, I’m expecting to—in fact, I notified my client just today that I had completed my analysis, and I was ready to present my opinion. And then he has a team of people that he’s assembled. I haven’t met any of them. So, it’s time to find out who these people are, and I’ll tell them what I think. I think it’s important to the expert, particularly the new expert, to keep in mind you can be part of a trial team, absolutely. But your opinion is your opinion.

Noah Bolmer: Right.

Dr. Kirk McDaniel: Not anybody else’s. And your opinions can be influenced by others, but ultimately you have to put your name on the dotted line. This is my opinion.

Noah Bolmer: What are some of the factors that make a good and efficient and effective expert witness engagement? How do you get off on the right foot and what are the factors that lead to a quality expert attorney relationship?

Dr. Kirk McDaniel: Open communication is key. I’ve had both types. I’ve had some communication, some relationships where it becomes much more of a partnership. I know, technically, they’re the attorney. I’m the expert. I’m doing this for money. That’s that we stipulate to that. When you find yourself working one on one with the person and engaging with them, and you’re having a—you can tell when you’re having a very productive conversation. And you start—you’re treated more like an equal rather than a subordinate. I’ve had others where you can’t hardly communicate with them at all. To the point you feel like you’re being kept at arm’s length. I know which one I prefer, the former versus the latter. And I’ve had somewhere the client practically ghosted me after engaging me. Only to find out they’d left the firm. Okay, well, you know, not much I can do about that.

Noah Bolmer: Are there any other red flags that stand out? “Gee whiz, this is not going to be a great relationship” or “Maybe I shouldn’t even accept this engagement.” Or “This isn’t somebody I would like to work with in the future.” What are the red flags?

Dr. Kirk McDaniel: Yeah, we get a pretty good feel for a person’s personality when they initially engage you. Are they interested in vetting you as an expert or interested in convincing you that you need to come help them? Now that could be kind of a subtle distinction, but I think it’s important. You know the type of people you want to work with. If they’re friendly, outgoing, they don’t come across as [say] sitting in an ivy tower someplace. They need your expertise to help them with a problem.

Noah Bolmer: All of that said, do you have any last advice for expert witnesses or attorneys working with experts?

Dr. Kirk McDaniel: One thing I would say to a new expert is to figure out what your lane is and then stick to it. Again, I have met experts before on the other side who, again, will apparently say almost anything, presumably for money. I think it’s important that you understand what your lane is. My lane is mining engineering and mining safety. My lane is not highway transportation safety. So, I know my lane, I try to stick to my lane, and I then am able to form opinions based on the reasonable degree of principles and practices of mining engineering that are hard to refute. In one case, we recently presented a Daubert challenge to the opposition. It’s challenging that this person did not have the requisite expertise. Now, as it turns out, that challenge was denied by the court and they were allowed to testify. And as I said earlier, experts can say almost anything in court to the point where it’s almost comical.

I find that very uncomfortable. I like to know that what I’m going to say is my opinion based on my 40 years’ experience, that it’s grounded in fact, grounded in best practices and consensus standards, grounded in regulations. Now, I also have an opinion, and that opinion may not be grounded in any of those things, but I have that ability to say, “Based on my 40 years, this is what I think.”

Noah Bolmer: Sure.

Dr. Kirk McDaniel: But my opinion to the new expert, know what you’re good at, and then find that lane and try to stay in that lane as best you can.

Noah Bolmer: Sage advice. Dr. McDaniel, thank you so much for joining me here today.

Dr. Kirk McDaniel: Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

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

Engaging with Mining Engineering Expert, Dr. Kirk McDaniel

Dr. Kirk McDaniel is the owner of Lamphead Safety Consulting, LLC, where he provides expert witness services and strategic consulting for mining and other high-risk industries. With a PhD from the Colorado School of Mines, Dr. McDaniel brings deep expertise in mine safety, regulatory compliance, ventilation, and emergency preparedness. He is a Certified Mine Safety Professional (CMSP) and a Professional Engineer (PE), and currently serves on the Board of Directors for the International Academy of Mine Safety and Health.