An Expert Guide to Managing Your Digital Footprint 

By Noah Bolmer

An expert’s professional identity is increasingly defined by what can be found online. Attorneys, expert agencies, and opposing counsel often begin their evaluation with a search, and the results can color how a CV is used. A digital footprint is mostly permanent, widely accessible, and can reveal inconsistencies or vulnerabilities that affect credibility. Managing that footprint requires attention to accuracy and consistency across every platform where your name appears. 

The Internet Never Forgets 

“100%, any kind of social media can come back and bite you, without a doubt.”
– Glenn Bierman, financial services expert. 

Before the internet, an expert’s professional trail was far more limited. Attorneys relied on CVs, published articles in journals, and word-of-mouth references. Conference presentations might be remembered by those in the room, but they rarely circulated beyond. Even newspaper interviews or trade magazine features had a shorter shelf life, save for what was archived in libraries. Once the issue was recycled or the conversation moved on, those traces faded. An expert’s footprint was more ephemeral.  

The arrival of the internet changed that landscape completely. Every social media update, conference bio, or casual comment became part of a permanent record. Search engines made it simple for attorneys, and especially opposing counsel, to pull together fragments from across decades. A stray interview from years ago, a LinkedIn profile that doesn’t match a CV, or an old blog post can all be retrieved instantly and placed under scrutiny. What was once fleeting is now fixed, searchable, and easily compared against formal testimony or reports. 

For experts, this shift means that professional identity is no longer defined only by curated documents. It is shaped by the accumulation of digital traces that remain accessible long after their original context has been forgotten. Managing that record requires awareness of how past and present materials interact, and how they may be interpreted by those looking for inconsistencies. 

When Details Don’t Match 

The most damaging discrepancies aren’t between LinkedIn and a CV—they’re between an expert’s digital footprint and the positions taken in an expert report or testimony. Attorneys will comb through old interviews, blog posts, and physical publications and line them up against the current case. If the expert once described a methodology differently, or expressed an opinion that conflicts with their analysis of the case, that material can be introduced in deposition to suggest inconsistency. Media expert Howard Homonoff explains: 

I may say things contrary to what I said 10 years ago—but not because I’m changing my mind for the case—but because 10 years ago, we all know the media world was a different one than the one we sit in today. It’s possible, I may have thought something was a good idea then that clearly isn’t now or vice-versa. There have been associates who’ve had the pleasure—I hope—of having to read everything I’ve written for the last 10 years on an almost weekly basis in Forbes. There’s a lot. 

An attorney may read aloud from a years‑old article and then ask why the expert’s report takes a different position. Even if the earlier statement was casual or made in a different context, the expert is forced to reconcile the two. The exchange shifts the focus from the merits of the analysis to the appearance of contradiction. A deposition that should be about technical findings becomes a defensive exercise in explaining past remarks. In court, these mismatches can be used to erode confidence in front of a judge or jury. A blog post that frames a concept one way, contrasted with testimony that frames it another, can be portrayed as evidence of unreliability. Once introduced, those inconsistencies can overshadow the substance of the testimony and leave the expert fighting to restore credibility. 

Search Yourself Before They Do 

Search engines surface everything from archived conference bios to social media activity. These fragments are often reviewed long before an engagement begins, and they can be compared against formal documents to look for gaps or contradictions. Conducting your own search is the most direct way to see what others will see. 

A practical audit should include: 

• Search engine results. Enter your name and common variations—but do so using a browser or search engine that isn’t influenced by prior cookies or search history. Personalized results can hide what a neutral searcher will see, so using incognito mode or a privacy‑focused engine gives a clearer picture of the public record. 

• Professional profiles. Check LinkedIn, association directories, and conference bios for consistency with your CV. 

• Publications and interviews. Identify articles, blog posts, or recorded talks that may be retrieved and compared against your current positions. 

• Social media activity. Review posts, comments, and likes for tone and professionalism. 

• Archived material. Look for older CVs, affiliations, or content that may still surface. 

Completing this audit provides a clearer view of the public record. It highlights areas where updates or corrections are needed and reveals material that might be taken out of context. Inconsistencies should be addressed before they are pointed out by someone else. Outdated information should be revised or removed when possible. Entertainment expert David L. Simon makes a local copy, “I keep a record of everything. My hard drive or my cloud is bursting at the seams.” 

Cleaning Up the Record 

Once you’ve searched yourself and identified the weak spots, the next step is to address them directly. The point isn’t to sanitize history, but to make sure that nothing in your footprint might be used to contradict the positions you’ve taken in a report or testimony. Attorneys will look for those contradictions, and if you’ve already mapped them out, you can decide whether to correct, contextualize, or prepare to explain them. 

This is where the CV becomes the anchor. Every other platform should reflect it, and anything that diverges should either be updated or clearly framed as part of your professional progression. If you once described a methodology differently in a blog post, note that evolution in a current publication. If an old interview frames your expertise in a way that no longer fits, either remove it if possible or be ready with a concise explanation of why your perspective has changed. 

Practical steps flow naturally from the audit: 

• Align platforms with the CV. Update LinkedIn, directories, and bios so they match the CV. 

• Correct outdated content. Where you can, remove or revise older CVs, bios, or casual posts that no longer reflect your current positions. 

• Contextualize evolution. If your thinking or methodology has shifted, document that progression so it looks deliberate rather than contradictory. 

• Prepare explanations. For material that can’t be removed, draft clear, consistent answers that reconcile past statements with current testimony. 

• Monitor regularly. Repeat the audit periodically so new traces don’t accumulate unnoticed. 

By treating the CV as the authoritative source and aligning everything else to it, you reduce the chance of being blindsided in deposition or cross-examination. Instead of scrambling to explain why your footprint doesn’t match your testimony, you’ve already done the work to ensure that the record supports your credibility. Instead of scrambling to explain why your footprint doesn’t match your testimony, you’ve already done the work to ensure that the record supports your credibility. Arboricultural expert Marty Shaw makes any changes deliberately:examination. Instead of scrambling to explain why your footprint doesn’t match your testimony, you’ve already done the work to ensure that the record supports your credibility. 

If you’ve testified one way in a previous case, and then in this case, you have to testify in a different way or give a slightly different version of it, then you have to justify the different information and the different fact patterns that are associated with that testimony. As long as you base it on the differences in the facts and not just you suddenly changed your mind. Perhaps you found new information by reading a book or what have you—then you’re allowed to change your testimony from one case to another. You can’t do it flippantly, though. 

Anticipating Exposure 

Even if you succeed in cleaning up the obvious inconsistencies—archived versions, cached pages, and screenshots can resurface years later. Attorneys know this, and they will search aggressively for traces that contradict your testimony. That reality means the best defense is not just correction but anticipation.  

Every opinion you post online becomes part of your professional archive. Casual remarks can be retrieved, quoted, and reframed in ways you never intended. Managing your digital posting means recognizing that the line between personal and professional is porous, and that attorneys will not hesitate to use your own words against you if they can. Key practices include: 

• Treat every post as permanent. Even deleted content may resurface through archives or screenshots. 

• Write with exposure in mind. Assume anything you publish could be read aloud under oath. 

• Avoid casual speculation. Off‑the‑cuff remarks on technical issues can later conflict with testimony. 

• Limit commentary. Comments in your area of expertise should be made with intent.  

• Provide context. Framing your remarks carefully ensures they reflect expertise rather than casual commentary.

The most effective expert witnesses adopt a discipline of intentional posting. They avoid chasing every trending debate and instead focus on contributions that reinforce their credibility. Managing your digital is about ensuring that the record you create strengthens your authority rather than eroding it. Vocational expert Merrill Cohen avoids categorical language that could later be searched and used against her. She recalls:  

The counsel for the defense [. . .] said to me, “Miss Cohen, isn’t it true in another matter, similar to this, you testified that the best measure of preinjury earning capacity is demonstrated earnings?” I looked at him and said, “No, that is not true.” He moved off of it, because I know what I had said is, “One of the best measures.” I never would categorically say that because I don’t believe it and he knew I didn’t say it. He figured I would think I said it because I almost said it. He tried to get me by “Oh, you’re saying this now, but you said that then.” I was like, “No, I didn’t say that then—so move on.” 

Experts who understand this treat their footprint as a living archive. They update it regularly, they publish clarifications when their methodology evolves, and they avoid casual commentary that could be misinterpreted later. By doing so, they ensure that when the record is searched, it tells a coherent story rather than a fragmented one.  

Conclusion 

Credibility depends not only on the strength of your analysis but on the coherence of the record that surrounds it. Searching yourself exposes the weak spots, cleaning up the record addresses them, and owning your footprint ensures that future traces reinforce rather than undermine your testimony. What distinguishes the most effective experts is not just technical rigor but the discipline to manage their professional narrative across every platform. By treating the CV as the anchor, aligning every other trace to it, and anticipating how new material will be read later, you reduce the risk of contradiction and strengthen the authority of your testimony. 

If you’d like to be considered for expert witness opportunities, join Round Table Group. For over 30 years, we’ve connected litigators with the most qualified experts across disciplines. Call us at 202‑908‑4500 or sign up today to learn more.