Along the Way: Expert Takeaways 

By Noah Bolmer

Expert witnesses often point to engagements that have taught them something lasting. Sometimes an experience leads to a change in preparation, or how they communicate. Other times it confirms that a familiar approach is still the right one. On Engaging Experts, we’ve asked our experts to talk about those turning points and takeaways.  

Compensation Clarity 

Clear agreements protect both the expert and the attorney, ensuring expectations are aligned before the work begins. Forensics expert Sheila Lowe recalls how a lack of clarity around fees led to repeated difficulties with the same attorney. 

I was going to a deposition in Orange County, which is one hundred miles from where I live. I was clear with [the attorney] about what my fee was going to be. When I got to the office of the attorney who was deposing me—apparently he didn’t know and refused to pay me for any more than one hour, which I think at the time, it was [a very small fee]. I drove two hundred miles, did the thing, and that was a bad experience. The same thing happened to me when I had to drive to San Diego. It was the same attorney. You think I would have learned—and I talked to that attorney strongly about it. That was a case where I was paid—it should have been [a significant fee], but it was way less than that, and it took me six hours to drive home. [. . .] I would encourage people to make sure before leaving your office that you know that you’re going to get paid and how you’re going to get paid. 

Knowing the Rules 

Arboricultural expert Marty Shaw recalls one case that reshaped the expectations around citing references in reports: 

There was one case I had in Washington, D.C.—and during the case and trial, I was testifying, and I made an emphatic statement [that] there was a fungus inside this tree to the judge. The judge didn’t like that very much and he said, “That’s just hearsay.” I believe that question went to the Court of Appeals, and they changed the rule now. If you have not cited the reference that you’re going to testify about in your report, then they’re not going to allow you to testify about it at trial. You have to cite it in the report. That was the difference, because before you used to be able to say, “I talked to so-and-so who was the leading expert on this, and they said it was this.” Now, they’re not going to allow you to. 

Rules that govern expert testimony are not static. They can be clarified, narrowed, or reinterpreted, and those changes can have lasting consequences for how experts prepare their work. Procedural changes like this can redefine how experts prepare. A single ruling can change precedent, and what was once routine may become inadmissible. Always check with your engaging attorney for any rules which may affect your work prior to getting started.  

Trials are Rare 

Expert work builds toward the potential for trial, yet most cases resolve before reaching that stage. Settlements bring certainty for the parties but can, at times, leave experts with a sense of unfinished business, especially when the opposing witness seems well‑matched and the legal issues are compelling. Commercial litigator and expert witness Erik Groothuis reflects on this dynamic: 

The most recent one I had was supposed to go to trial in New Jersey, and the case settled—as they often do, right before trial—but I found that the expert on the other side had experience and credentials that were similar to mine. We were mirror images of each other. I understood what he was saying and he understood what I was saying. We never had the occasion to meet, but through reading the reports, you could see we were going down the same path. It would have been interesting to see at trial giving our lawyer my thoughts on his opinion and vice versa—I would have liked to see how that played out. It can be frustrating. You put so much work into things and so many cases settle because jury trials are so unpredictable and parties like the certainty of a settlement. Many of them wind up going away. I guess I’m used to that from being an advocate, but I was looking forward to doing this particular trial because it seemed it was an interesting set of legal issues. 

Maintaining a Professional Demeanor 

Professionalism is tested when opposing experts come to seemingly dubious conclusions over the same data. In those moments, the measure of an expert is not in proving superiority but in maintaining composure and keeping the focus on evidence. Mycology expert Dr. Nik Money has learned to stay above the fray: 

There have been cases where expert witnesses [. . .] have been engaged, and then it comes down to a fight between these expert witnesses. Not that we’re ever seeing each other in the courtroom—but it’s these radically different readings of the same data; the same information. And that’s been interesting. In some cases what I have to do there is to [step] back before I’mengaging in ad hominem attacks upon the credentials of those witnesses. I have to stick to the science. Those have been some of the most challenging cases that end up where maybe we’redisagreeing, but it’s a reasonable disagreement. A scientific disagreement about what the data suggests. All I can do in that case is provide my opinion. It’s up to the jury to decide. 

Similarly, food marketing expert Dr. John Stanton recalls a case that underscores the importance of keeping a professional demeanor, especially when there is animosity between the parties: 

There was a case involving two privately held companies where the presidents were just at each other. When I looked at the case I said to myself, “What are these guys arguing about? This should have been settled in a minute and a half.” One of the things, for example, was the other side claimed that our client had released proprietary information. We said, “But it was in a national advertisement. You can’t call something propriety that’s in an international ad.” So, there were a lot of these little things. I realized it wasn’t about the law.  These two guys didn’t like each other, and they were just- and I have so many cases like that. You have to realize that these people are fighting over now. In many of the cases, it was two millionaires fighting about $200. You just take that for what it is and try not to make judgments about whether it makes sense that they do these things. 

Grace Under Pressure 

High‑profile cases can stretch depositions out, testing both stamina and resolve. For an expert, the key to navigating that intensity is preparation—grounding opinions in solid evidence and being ready to defend them under scrutiny. Aviation expert Captain John Cox recalls: 

Early on, I was involved in a case after an aircraft accident. It was a high-profile case and there were many attorneys both on the plaintiff and defense sides. My deposition was multiple days, and it was an arduous experience. [. . .] After that, it ain’t going to get any worse. You go in with the attitude of, “Okay, take your best shot.” I try carefully to underpin the opinions that I publish with good citations, so if you go right there, as it says in the report and that’s where I’m going to start pushing the attorneys back into a corner. 

Observing how subtle strategy can mask formidable skill left a lasting impression on bioengineering expert Dr. Chris Daft: 

This was a situation with a lawyer who was an older woman and I observed the way she did depositions. She would fuss in a motherly way with the expert she was about to depose. She would offer the usually male expert tea and act like she was a secretary, fully getting the expert off guard. Then during the deposition, she would proceed to dismantle their opinions ruthlessly because her mind was as sharp as a razor. This simple trick that she was able to do as an older woman struck me as utterly terrifying. 

Not every challenge during deposition comes from the content of questions; sometimes it comes from the tactics used to unsettle an expert before the real work begins.  

Stay Credible 

Expert work often involves moments of pressure when an unexpected question or challenge arises. In those situations, credibility is not built on having every answer at hand but on the integrity of the response. DEA compliance and pharmaceutical quality expert Benjamin Mink illustrates this point: 

[I]n a case I had early on, I was sitting in the deposition, and the plaintiff’s attorney asked a question that was way out in left field. In that moment, my heart sort of sunk. I didn’t have the perfect answer at the ready, and up until that time I felt like I was hitting every ball out of the ballpark. I just paused for a moment and applied some critical thinking to what the best way to answer this is—and I just came to the conclusion that honesty was the best approach to this.  

Instead of aiming to anticipate every possible question, he began to focus on how to respond when the unexpected occurs: 

[. . .] The reality was I didn’t know the answer in the moment. So, I just said, “Hey, I don’t know this, without reviewing the data, but here is what I do know.” And what I learned from that was that credibility doesn’t come from having every answer; it comes from honesty and integrity under pressure. I think that was really a defining moment for me, because it’s something I carried into future depositions, and I realized that a jury member isn’t necessarily looking for you to know every single answer [. . .] because you just don’t know what to expect and nobody knows everything. I mean that’s impossible to achieve. I think—at the end of the day—they really appreciate the integrity and the honesty and the ability to say, “Hey, I don’t know that, or I need to review that, but here’s what I do know.” 

Security and legal expert Dr. James Pastor recounts a difficult deposition:  

I wrote four books, so I have [many] opinions out there and on a recent case, I had an attorney—I’d never seen anything like this before. [. . .] He tried to pull [a] statement out and apply it to the facts, and he was using these PowerPoint slides as attachments to the deposition. I did this for a few slides and then I said, “I’m not doing this anymore. I’m stopping.” Previously, [my side’s] attorneys were objecting, but I said, “No. I’m stopping. This is it. I’m not doing any more of these slides. You’resummarizing what I said. You’re taking [my] words out of context.” That goes to how hard it is to be an expert as you gain status in the industry, but also to watch for what I would call creative, but not legitimate ways to impeach your credibility. 

Challenges like these highlight how the role of an expert evolves with visibility. The more established an expert becomes, the more inventive the questioning can be, and the harder it is to keep the focus on substance. Credibility in difficult depositions can depend on knowing when to draw a line. 

A Commitment to Growth 

Expert practice is not always marked by epiphanies. Often, it develops gradually through exposure to different types of work and through learning from those encountered along the way. Each engagement adds perspective, and each collaboration offers insight into how expertise can be sharpened. Economics expert Dr. Philip Cross reflects: 

I don’t know if I have any tentpole cases. I’m a much better expert witness now than I was five or ten years ago. I’m not thinking of a eureka moment necessarily, where everything fell into place. It’s more incremental and important with each passing year. I work more on different types of engagements, and I learn more. Some lawyers I’ve worked with are [extremely] smart and I’m like, “Wow.” I learn about how litigation works from these smart lawyers. I also learn a lot about this person who’s at the top of their career in what they’re doing—it’s inspiring me to try that, even if I’m not a lawyer. I’m in a different line of business, but this person is still impressive, and knows what they’re talking about. I can see why they’re a successful lawyer. If I can channel that more in what I do [as] an expert witness, maybe one day I’ll end up in the same position. 

Recognizing when additional training would reinforce authority is itself a mark of professionalism. Pursuing new credentials ensures that opinions are backed by both practice and formalized learning. Compensation expert Garth Gartrell illustrates this commitment: 

There was one case in particular where I knew the expert was selling a lie to the judge and was masquerading as a deep and dark math expert. I have a fair math background myself and I knew he was stretching concepts way beyond what they could do, but I felt a little self-conscious about my lack of recent math credentials.  

Perception is everything; even when experts are well-versed in a topic, it may take certification to withstand impeachment. He continues:  

[N]ow, I did what I thought was good work, but I thought if I was going to continue to get calls about this stuff, I wanted to have credentials that were more in sync with my CPA credentials, and less what people think of as a lawyer. That’s why in my mid-60s, I went and started a graduate degree in the School of Industrial Engineering at Georgia Tech on data analytics. Now, there’s no question about my ability to understand and articulate those issues. 

Conclusion 

Some lessons arrive during grueling depositions, others in the subtle tactics of opposing counsel, and still others in the quiet recognition that growth requires new credentials or fresh perspective. Taken together, they reveal that expertise is continually shaped by moments both large and small—moments of conflict, preparation, surprise, and reflection.  

For over 30 years, Round Table Group has been connecting litigators with skilled and qualified expert witnesses. If you are interested in being considered for expert witness opportunities, contact us at 202-908-4500 for more information or sign up now!