In this episode . . .
Do you want to identify and employ enthusiastic experts without lifting a finger? Are you interested in using a simple, reliable method that will save you valuable time and money? If so, look no further than the the Experts on Experts®, Round Table Group. Since its creation in 1995, Round Table Group has perfected its expansive network and efficient methodology for locating and retaining the world’s leading technical and industry consultants. Today, four members of Round Table Group gather to discuss the firm’s exciting origin story—and how the company has grown and developed over the past 25 years.
In this episode of the Engaging Experts Podcast, Rise25 Co-Founder John Corcoran sits down with Russ Rosenzweig, Dan Rubin, Brice David, and David Seeley, the movers and shakers at Round Table Group. Listen in as Russ, Dan, Brice, and David reveal why Round Table Group was founded, how they built their expansive network of experts, and the power of good conversation during the intake process. Stay tuned!
Note: Transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.
John Corcoran, Co-Founder, Rise25
Dan Rubin, National Business Development Manager, Round Table Group
Brice David, Senior Manager of IP Services, Round Table Group
David Seeley, Business Development Executive, Round Table Group
Introduction: Welcome to Engaging Experts, the podcast that goes behind the scenes with influential attorneys. Our guests will describe their practice and expertise, then we will go deep on various topics related to effectively using expert witnesses.
Russ Rosenzweig: Hi, this is Russ Rosenzweig. I am the CEO and Co-Founder of Round Table Group and host of this podcast series. When we got into the expert witness business 25 years ago, I had this realization that the lawyers, the litigators that we work with so often to help find their expert witnesses, are just as many experts themselves as are the professors and expert witnesses that we recommend to them in the expert witness search and referral context. So, the vision behind this podcast, as we begin our next 25 years here at Round Table Group, is to highlight some of those litigators. Our program is designed to introduce you to fellow litigators, [or] maybe you’re a business owner or an entrepreneur and might be interested in some of the top litigators in our nation. We’ll be talking about all things expert related that we work on with our litigation clients, and we’ll also be introducing the lawyers and learning about them and their practice and what they specialize in. I’m really thrilled to kick off this podcast series.
And speaking of experts, it’s my pleasure to introduce my teacher, and guru who is really, I think, the top expert in the world on all things podcast, John Corcoran. John has been doing literally thousands of interviews with successful entrepreneurs, investors and CEOs and I think, poor dear, even had to do a 60-minute podcast with me a few weeks ago. Thanks for surviving that and it is great to talk to you again, John.
John Corcoran: My pleasure, Russ, and team. We’ve got a whole team here. We’ve got the all-stars! I’m going to introduce them in a second. I’m excited to dive into this. We’re going to be talking in this episode about, why use an expert on experts? That’s what Round Table Group is; It is helping litigators and law firms to get the right expert at the right time for the right case for the right matter, so we’re going to dive into that topic. But first, before we get into that, this episode is brought to you by Round Table Group, the Experts on Experts. For more than 25 years, they have helped litigators locate, assess, and engage the best and most qualified expert witnesses. Round Table Group is a great complement to any litigator’s expert witness quest, and their search is always free of charge. The skilled team will review the complaint or patent and discuss all the nuances and details of the perfect expert. They’ll perform thorough and comprehensive research and even call the candidates to check for conflicts and confirm their availability, saving attorneys hours and hours of time. If you need an expert witness now you can visit roundtablegroup.com or contact them at firstname.lastname@example.org.
All right, so I’ve got an all-star group here with me today. In addition to Russ Rosenzweig, CEO and Co-Founder of Round Table Group, we also have Dan Rubin, National Business Development Manager. We have Brice David, who is the Senior Manager of IP Services, and we have David Seely, Business Development Executive, all here at your service to give the background of why you would want, if you’re a litigator or law firm, to bring in someone else, to help you with this function. So, First, Russ, I’ll go over to you. You were the co-founder of this company 25 years ago. Let’s start with why did you dive into this business? Why did you see this as an opportunity and why did you see it as a really a need in the market?
Russ Rosenzweig: Well, you know, John, when we first got started in the mid-90s, we didn’t have lawyers and expert witnesses on our minds. Our startup concept was to create the world’s first consulting firm, consisting entirely of university professors. Which was a unique concept at the time and was driven by the fact that my co-founders and I had amazing teachers at places like Northwestern and University of Chicago and Cornell and Vanderbilt, and we just kind of wondered why aren’t these rock star faculty members used more often? In what I might call a commercial context, in sort of a consulting context. When we started, John, the vision was to have a consortium of thousands of PhD and MD faculty members who would provide services to clients.
John Corcoran: Cool, and you eventually realized that there was a heavy need, particularly in the legal realm, in the legal world, and so you put a lot of your energy into that. But it’s a lot bigger than just the network, right? You have a lot of people to come to you and say, you know, “Do you have an expert in this field?” Which is one piece of it, right? But in addition to that, also there’s more to it . . . There’s more to going out, and finding, recruiting, convincing, negotiating with all the other elements that are involved in the placement of an expert. So, give me some little bit of explanation on both the network piece, which of course is valuable, you built an extensive network over 25 years, and then also kind of a high-level overview of the search piece as well.
Russ Rosenzweig: Well, that’s quite right, John. It was a very fortuitous accident, really, that lawyers and litigators specifically started calling us because as we were focused on building this professor network, it was such a unique idea no one had ever like created a consulting firm [of] professors before, that we got a lot of press. We were in the Wall Street Journal; we were in the New York Times, we were in Fortune [Magazine] in Crain’s [Chicago Business], and that got the attention, thank God, really, of quite a few law firm partners, particularly litigators, who found us, who heard about us and called us about their expert witness needs. It was a real “ah-ha” moment for us, John. We didn’t realize until then that it is very time-consuming and very inefficient for litigators to find their expert witnesses. We started taking phone calls from litigators and often didn’t need a professor. They needed another specialized expert, and we kept growing our database. It’s massive by now, 25 years later. I think one of the hallmarks of Round Table Group and our experts, I guess we would call it, expert witness research process, is even though we have by now possibly the world’s largest database of expert witnesses of every kind, it’s always just the starting point for us, John. We usually have three or four great expert witness candidates in that database, but we really pride ourselves on thoroughness and rigor. We come out of sort of a University of Chicago tradition here, where everything is about thorough data and you know, God forbid, there’s a perfect expert who’s not in our database! [One] that would be even more perfect for a lawyer’s needs. So, it’s our intent always, every time, we work with a lawyer to leave no stone unturned, and we have a quite rich and rigorous, almost what I would call a checklist of tools and techniques, that we use beyond our massive database anytime and every time a lawyer needs an expert witness.
John Corcoran: I want to get into that or give a high-level overview; at least we’ll have other episodes that go more in depth on the search piece. You mentioned the University of Chicago. I know you got your MBA there, so you’re really familiar with the trainings that comes from there, but I want to go over to you, David Seeley, and talk a little bit about intake because, and again, we’re going to have more in depth discussion around this, but what I think is fascinating and a lot of maybe lawyers who are immersed in their case, immersed in their client work don’t realize, is that they don’t always know the series of questions [to ask] when they don’t do it on a daily basis like you guys do. [Questions] that should be asked, that will help lead [them] down the path of finding the right expert. So, talk a little bit about that intake process and why it’s critical.
David Seeley: Sure, sure. The intake guide is critical, and it is our starting point when we do get that request from an attorney for an expert witness. One thing we really pride ourselves in is the process of what we do. So again, it’s important for the conflict check, for example, to have party names. We must get the party names. We must ensure we’re not already involved in the case because we won’t work on both sides of a matter. We’ll only work for one side. The party names are important. We make sure [we clear] our conflict check and we also make sure, secondarily with the party names, is often-times when we are reaching out to experts we share that information, [as] sometimes there’s a conflict with an expert. So that’s [the] first piece of [intake], getting that [information]. Then what we do next is we really look at the type of matter it is and the case facts, the relevant facts about the case. This is highly critical because our experts are so specialized and they are so expert in their area of knowledge, they have such a wheelhouse that they’re so good at, and the more information that we can provide to our experts . . . this is what the case is about, this is what the attorney is looking for… the more of that information that we can provide to the expert, it allows the expert to say, “I’m interested in [and] I’m qualified. I would love to get involved in this!” We would really like to get the details and the main facts about the case to present to our experts. It also lets the attorney know we’re not just going through a list of 15 experts, and we’ll just pick three or four out of there and send their CV’s. We really match you up. I know you said earlier, one of our hallmarks is the right expert at the right time on the right terms. So that’s very important and there are several other little aspects to the intake guide as well. Once facts are there, once we know what kind of expert the attorney is looking for, we look at geographical preference — we look at the location of the expert. You know someone is in New York City and there is a case being held in New York City. Do they want someone from that region? Do they want someone from New York, Boston, or DC? And a lot of times that plays into the fact that even being able to get in touch with [the expert] and meet with them in person and be able to just interview the expert because that is something that we do. Once we match the expert, once we get the right expert for them, we have interviews. We let [the attorneys] talk to the experts. We let them look at their CV’s … and see if that is what they’re looking for. So those kinds of things are important with the intake guide. It’s our bedrock that the information we have must have to start.
John Corcoran: Great. Dan Rubin, I want to turn to you to talk about the search process and, for a busy attorney who’s hopping from case to case, client to client, throughout a day or throughout a week . . . busy, you know, they often don’t have the time, the bandwidth, to go deep and figure out who are the right experts. And so, you have these expert witness services managers, and we’re going to hear from another one in the second, Brice David, who are domain experts, and many have advanced degrees in distinct categories. They’re able to read a patent and understand it. They’re able to read a multi hundred-page complaint and understand it. So, talk a little bit about the role that they play.
Dan Rubin: Right? Thanks, John. You hit the nail on the head. Our team of expert witness services managers are truly the value that that we add to the expert search. As Russ mentioned, our network, as vast as it is with thousands and thousands of experts in the gamut of disciplines in the most nuanced of specialties within those disciplines, is just our starting point. It’s the tip of the iceberg, I think. What is it — 1/10th of an iceberg is what is visible above the water and the remaining 90% is submerged?
John Corcoran: That’s a good metaphor.
Dan Rubin: Thank you. I believe I got it from our CEO Russ Rosenzweig . . . That’s analogous to our team of expert witness services managers you alluded to, they have over 10 plus years of experience in various disciplines, [some are] former attorneys. Brice David, on our call today, is himself an electrical engineer. So, when he gets a patent infringement case, he’s not only just searching our network and searching beyond looking in Google, Google Scholar and LinkedIn Premium and so on so forth [in] various other resources. He has the knowledge, when he’s reading the patent, to understand and match up the necessary expert with the technology that case calls for.
John Corcoran: Yeah, so in having an educated conversation with these potential experts to assess whether they have sufficient domain expertise and presentation skills to be the appropriate person for the case.
Dan Rubin: Exactly. Speaking the language, and it is almost like a foreign language if you’re not skilled in that particular practice area. Additionally, attorneys don’t have the time to truly assess these candidates like our team of expert witness services managers do. That’s what we do all day, every day. And they’ve been doing it for 25 plus years in industry. So, when an attorney comes to us asking, “Do you have an expert in X field with Y nuanced to their expertise and in Z geographical area?” That question is almost irrelevant, because if we don’t have someone already in our network, our team of expert witness services managers are going to find that expert 99% of the time. And they’re going to do so, as David mentioned [when discussing] intake, within the necessary timeframe. We will find out specifically not only when is the attorney’s expert disclosure deadline, but also when is the heavy lifting, so to speak, going to be necessary, writing the reports, perhaps doing a site inspection, and so on and so forth. It’s bringing together all the various aspects, not only of the questions that we’re asking, knowing the right questions asked, knowing the right places to look, but then also combining it with the relationships that we’ve developed with these experts over 25 plus years in the industry. If a particular expert looks like the ideal candidate but is not in a geographical location, for instance, in which the attorney needs the expert to be, then those experts in our network may be able to, and often are able to, recommend colleagues who are in in the right location. There are many, you know, instances in which we found the needle in the haystack. Or use another analogy like Russ did, turning over that stone and finding that expert underneath this in this remote area. For instance, we had an insurance case I’ll never forget. An attorney came to us looking for an expert in an insurance case where they were looking for an industrial hygienist to opine as to the safety practices and procedures of shipyards during World War II. And I thought to myself, “There is no way we’re finding this expert.” I didn’t say that, of course, to the attorney and it’s a good thing I didn’t, because, sure enough, we found multiple candidates. One other instance that comes to mind: We found an expert in fire safety practices and procedures in a Venezuelan prison. So, it’s not just this general area of expertise for which we’re providing candidates, but what I ask attorneys to do is tell me what . . . what does your ideal expert look like? Because we can always go broader. We want to find that very specific, ideal expert.
John Corcoran: So, let me bring in one of those expert witness services managers, Brice David. What you’re doing is really like finding that needle in the haystack? You’re doing detective work, it sounds like.
Brice David: Yeah, I mean, it’s about understanding. I think that clients are a little bit surprised initially because they talked to David and he asked him all the questions, and David then sends it to me. And that gives me enough to just come up to speed. My colleagues make me sound really smart, which is awesome, right? You have to learn these things and so, before I call the attorney, I’ve actually kind of done a little bit of research about the case and what they might be talking about because I’m going to call them and I’m going to have a second conversation about the expert, [and about] what they need. The better informed I am, the better questions I’m going to ask, the better answers I’m going to get, and that lets me get as close as possible to what they actually need. They know their case better than I do. There’s no question about that. But I think I know finding experts better than they do. The better I get, the more information I can get out of them . . . and by the way, that saves time. That conversation saves so much time on everybody’s behalf.
John Corcoran: Right, and speaking of that, if you go down one of these routes you find an expert and you spend a bunch of time researching them, talking to them, and then it turns out they’re not worthwhile. You haven’t charged the client a dime, right?
Brice David: Right. Well, that’s not even the worst. The worst is when they say they are the perfect fit, and you get them on the phone. They start talking to the attorney and it just doesn’t mesh. They just don’t click. You know within five minutes that it’s just not going to work out. You are already thinking, “I have to find somebody else.”
John Corcoran: Yeah, but it does happen in cases, so it’s then you are there to stand by to find a new one. If you talk a little bit about one of the challenges, people might think, “Oh, just find an academic or find a professor,” or something like that. However, industry experts are one of the more challenging areas. So, talk about how hard it is to find someone who’s in [the] industry who, maybe they’re not writing, they’re not publishing, they don’t have a book out. How do you find these experts?
Brice David: That’s where our database comes in. About half our searches, we end up having to find someone not in our database. But the database that we have, gets you to the point where you can find somebody in the field and they’re going to know those people much better than you. And so, you know, you can have a conversation. They know us. We have a relationship. I can call them. They’ll call me back. They’ll spend 10 minutes on the phone with me. I can say, “I have this case, and here’s what I’m looking for. Who should I be talking to?” You know, they’re kind and helpful. So that’s a wonderful way to find people like that. But you’re right, they don’t publish, but they do have PhD’s, and they did do dissertations, and they do go to industry conferences. There are ways to find them, but it is true that finding industry experts is much harder. But they bring a certain perspective, right? They bring an historical perspective to cases and sometimes that’s important, too.
John Corcoran: Russ, I want to circle back to you. So, the topic is search practices and criteria, best practices. You’ve developed these processes over 25 years. Anything else we haven’t touched on in terms of the secrets or secret sauce behind how to find the right expert at the right time for the right matter?
Russ Rosenzweig: Well, I’ll just highlight a couple of things, maybe put them in perspective. This idea of having a conversation or two with a client in plain English about their matter and discussing, really brainstorming, about what the perfect expert looks like: her credentials, geographic location, preference, no budget requirements… just everything you can imagine under the sun. These kinds of good, old-fashioned, thorough conversations don’t happen that much anymore in the world. Everything is going to apps, and we have some new competitors that boast, “Hey, you don’t even have to have a conversation, you just, upload the complaint and we’ll do the rest.” We have this tradition and preference for having that good old-fashioned conversation. I’ve seen it over the years, John, where often during these initial intake conversations, we together realize there’s some different nuances. There may be a different kind of expert or two that the attorney hadn’t contemplated prior to the call. My colleagues, like Brice, are so skilled at this and have been at it for so many years. We actually read the complaint. We read the patent. We’re prepared to just really have a deep dive. That being said, this conversational intake process is optional. Basically, whatever lawyers want, we’ll do. Some of our beloved clients have worked with us so often by now that they’re comfortable with sending us a two-page email that [includes everything] they know what we’re going to ask. They articulate everything. It’s thorough, it’s rigorous, and we can get started. Others like to go in the other direction, and you meet with us privately in person, with their whole legal team, in a conference room, in [the] confidential confines of a room, and go deep on the case. A lot of these matters that we work on are so significant, they could be some of the biggest trials of our time, and they’re quite confidential. It’s not always law firms calling us, it’s sometimes government agencies, and we’re really proud to have developed the trust. So many clients and repeat clients over 25 years. It’s partly because of the beginning, the intake, part of the process. I think the second part, that clients have come to really love and trust, as we’ve already discussed, is what we do behind the scenes. As Brice and Dan were explaining, the rigorous research process, which, as much as I was saying that the traditional intake conversation is low tech, everything, we do research wise, is quite high tech. Our database, that we’ve been building over these years . . . just has so many complex and nuanced details to it that allows us to home in on very specific kinds of experts. We are working increasingly with really cool and interesting artificial intelligence algorithms that allow us to look at potentially qualified experts and allows us to quickly see every article they’ve ever written on the topic and quickly find the co-authors and the citations and the bibliography. It allows us to spend what would take a lawyer, maybe, 50 hours [it takes us] less than that. We still spend a lot of time on behalf of our clients, but our clients, I think, really appreciate knowing that without them having to do the work, we are just being extremely rigorous in that research process. The final piece that I don’t think we quite highlighted, is what happens after we find a few qualified candidates.
John Corcoran: Glad you brought us around to that because I did want to ask you about that. So, after you’ve found the perfect expert, there is a potential, of course, of there being a conflict [that] pops up later, or an expert who drops out. Round Table Group is not done at that point, right? Talk a little bit about after that point.
Russ Rosenzweig: Well, there are two “after’s.” The first after is when Brice and the team find five to ten potentially qualified candidates. There’s a lot of work that happens after that. In calling them up and describing the matter in more depth and checking for conflicts and assessing their interest, and sometimes even negotiating their billing rates, if the client is quite price sensitive. There’s a lot. It takes lawyers – even if they find qualified candidates, they often forget — that could take many hours to have those conversations, those, vetting conversations, and asking those questions and getting a potential candidate up to speed. It is very time consuming for a lawyer, and we happily do it every time here. The other after, John, is after that perfect expert is formally engaged. Most typically, the way it works is clients hire Round Table Group for the services of the expert and that way an expert works directly with the client. You know, we don’t need to get involved in the minutiae and day-to-day operations of the work that the expert witness is doing. But we do stay involved, a little bit of a higher level, in customer service or “dazzling the customer” kind of context. We’re immensely proud to periodically be checking in with expert and clients alike. “How’s it going? What’s working? What’s not? Is the expert exceeding your expectations?” . . . as they nearly always do. I personally play a role when I see anything that looks like the expert is spending considerable time on a case. When I see a lot of hours being spent on a matter, I automatically, personally, will pick up the phone and call the client. First, of course, thank them again for their business with us, but also really check in to ensure that the expert is exceeding expectations and that invoices are as expected and if there are any nuanced complexities. We’re very proud to be able to play that role, of kind of preempting issues or concerns, by having this focus on customer service and customer excellence,
John Corcoran: Which is so important for a busy attorney, who’s got so many things on their mind heading towards a trial date, to not have to worry. One fewer thing to have to worry about. Final question. Just to wrap things up, Russ, I’ll go to you and anyone else who wants to chime in. I’m a devil’s advocate here. Why again hire a company to come in to find my expert for me? For those who are who aren’t convinced yet.
Russ Rosenzweig: For all these 26 years now that I’ve been in the business, I’ve made it a habit every day, [to] ask lawyers, “How do you find your experts?” And then, as now, it’s almost always the same answer. It’s who do we know? Who did we use last time? Who did the client happen to recommend? Maybe have an associate or paralegal do a Google search and you might get 9 million hits, but people only have time to look at the first page or two. That’s typically the process. Our clients are very thorough and rigorous people, and I don’t think that they should have this burden of needing to spend dozens and dozens of hours finding experts when they could be doing higher level, more significant lawyer work and leave the expert search to us. We also like to work collaboratively with lawyers.
A lot of lawyers still like to use those processes, and they should be asking, “Who do we know? Who have we worked with last time? Hey, we’ve come up with a few experts on our own . . .” All good, even better frankly, and we work often very collaboratively with our clients. They have a few experts that they’re considering, and we go through our processes and send a few more and collectively make it a very enjoyable and thorough process. We never charge anything upfront, John, to engage with lawyers on this expert witness search journey and we’re quite good at finding experts that fit within whatever budget range lawyers have. And, of course, we have the customer service component, post retention, that a lot of clients appreciate. I think a combination of passion and price is the reason a lot of clients engage with us. We’re just so passionate about this line of work and we’re proud to be able to find experts within basically any kind of budget that’s required for a particular litigation.
John Corcoran: Well, I think you covered everything, but at the risk of doing it anyways, I’m going to go around rapid fire, less than 30 seconds to each of you. I’m going to ask you for your take: one reason why a busy litigator who is listening to this, a busy law firm that’s listening to this right now, if they haven’t used an expert on experts like you guys, why should they? Dan, I’ll start with you.
Dan Rubin: Thanks John. Time, no costs short of retaining an expert we refer, and the experience of our expert services managers who only search for experts daily and have experience in the various disciplines in which we’re looking for those same experts. Understanding the language. Having that litigation experience but also . . . there are so many things I could touch on, but you know the fact that we won’t work on both sides of a matter. It’s a higher bar than many of our competitors. The customer service that Russ discussed and that personal touch of a CEO who is nipping potential billing disputes in the bud and making sure that experts are meeting the attorney’s expectations. It’s from start to finish, the fact that attorneys, as Russ mentioned, don’t have the time to do a thorough search like we’re doing for them. Why not have the experts do the search for experts while attorneys are able to do other attorney related matters?
John Corcoran: Great. Brice David, Senior Manager of IP Services, turning to you, 30 seconds.
Brice David: I’m glad Dan only gave you one and didn’t take all the others that we might have mentioned, that was nice of him.
John Corcoran: And David you’re last, so you know you’re going to have to pull it off. You know you’re in trouble, David.
Brice David: You know what? I think they do their client a service honestly, fundamentally, as a lawyer, you’re doing your client service by coming to services like us. We expand the pool of people you have for your consideration. They are vetted. They have already been spoken to. They know the schedule. If I send you somebody, they’re usually worth speaking to. You may not like them. You may not click with them. They might not be who you ultimately decide to hire, but they’re worth the conversation. At the end of the day, we’re going to give you candidates you would never find on your own. So, why not consider them because this really doesn’t cost your client anything . . . unless they retain one of ours.
John Corcoran: Great point. David Seeley, last thought from you.
David Seeley: Yeah, thank you, so I’m going just kind of piggyback, but maybe elaborate a little bit. One thing that stands out to me is reputation. I personally feel that we are one of the best kept secrets that there are in this industry. I say that because, in that conversation, when they’re looking for that expert, […] there are so many things the attorneys [are] focusing on [other than] the expert. The expert sometimes is just the last thing or the least thing that they’re thinking about. I’ve had several conversations with attorneys where they’re looking for a certain expert, and one of two things happens at that point. Number one, they might say, “Man, just talking to you David, I think I actually need a second expert in this area.” Because I’ve uncovered [the need] and I’ve asked those questions. So that goes into that reputation of who we are as a company. We do have that conversation like Russ said, and we do uncover additional needs that the attorney just doesn’t. They’re maxed out. You know, they are just in this case and that the details are so important. That sometimes we uncover that second expert for them. Then I’ve also had conversations where an attorney’s like, “I think this is what I’m looking for.” Through that conversation, I do have resources like Dan and Russ and Brice David that I can reach out to, and get back in touch with that attorney, and it turns out that they were kind of in the right neighborhood on what they are looking for, but now we’ve really [helped them define] exactly what they’re looking for. We’ve altered what they really were looking for in an expert. So, I think that we just have such an incredible team and reputation that if you’re not using us, like Brice said, you’re doing a disservice to your client.
John Corcoran: Wow, David, I’m impressed. You came up with a good rationale that was pretty good. Alright gentlemen, roundtablegroup.com, email@example.com is the email address. Russ, is there anywhere else that people can go to learn more about you, Round Table Group, or connect with any of you folks?
Russ Rosenzweig: I think contacting us on that email address is best. We have a phone number on the website, if you prefer. You’ll probably get David Seeley on the line when you call. I would also encourage people to stay tuned as these podcasts start being produced. You’re going to meet some really, really world class lawyers and experts and other people affiliated with the expert witness industry. It’s going to be a rare opportunity to meet some real movers and shakers and learn about their backgrounds, how they came to where they are, and also to learn every possible nuance and technical detail of engaging with experts once they are engaged, hopefully by us. But [also] post engaging your expert, there are hundreds and hundreds of real nuanced details for lawyers to understand about best practices, and you’ll be learning them from your peers in the episodes to come.
John Corcoran: Well, we’re setting a high bar, because people would expect nothing less from the expert on experts. That’s going to be some expertise shared on this podcast, so I look forward to it. Gentlemen, thanks so much.
After a quarter century helping litigators find the right expert witnesses, Round Table Group’s network contains some of the world’s greatest experts. On the Discussions at the Round Table podcast, we talk to some of them about what’s new in their field of study and their experience as expert witnesses.
Legal is anything relating to the law and lawyers or permitted by law. Anything allowable or enforceable by conforming with the law of the land and public policy, it is legal.