Translating Expertise: How Expert Witnesses Communicate Complex Concepts

By Noah Bolmer

Whether preparing a report, consulting with counsel, or testifying in court, it is crucial to communicate expertise in a way that supports legal decision-making without overwhelming or alienating the audience. Attorneys, judges, and jurors bring their own levels of fluency, and the expert’s job is adapting to those differences while staying within the bounds of their role. This demands the discipline to eliminate the extraneous without leaving out anything essential.  

Know Your Audience 

Expert witnesses present their findings to a mix of legal professionals and laypersons, each with different expectations and experience. Attorneys want testimony that supports their case theory without introducing unnecessary complexity. Judges focus on relevance, clarity, and admissibility. Jurors may need help understanding unfamiliar concepts without being talked down to or overwhelmed. Communicating effectively means recognizing these differences and adjusting your approach without altering the integrity of your analysis. 

Oil, energy, and gas expert Steve Reese explains:  

I’ve taught my seminars to probably over 10,000 professionals over the years, and as long as I have a whiteboard and a flip chart, I can get my message across because the business—at its core—Is not that complicated. To a heart surgeon, that’s not complicated either. [. . .] You have to read the room and understand where you should start. One thing I learned early on in my career is if you’re a subject matter expert when you get in the room, you know more than 95% of the people in the room, including the judge, attorney, counsel, and other experts. You have to be able to do that in a non-condescending manner. 

Counsel may have a general understanding of your field, but they are focused on how your analysis supports their theory of the case. They are looking not for a seminar, but actionable, defensible insights: 

• Define where your conclusions fit within the broader narrative 

• Flag any assumptions, limitations, and areas of ambiguity that could affect strategy  

Attorneys also decide what parts of your testimony are emphasized, what terminology is introduced, and how your expertise is positioned.  

Like attorneys, judges are legally trained but may not be familiar with the technical foundations of your discipline. In bench trials or pretrial hearings, your testimony may be reviewed in detail, and precision matters. Your responsibility is to present your reasoning in a way that is logically sound, internally consistent, and free of unnecessary complexity: 

• Focus on method and clarity 

• Avoid jargon unless essential and be prepared to explain your terminology  

• Conclusions should be supported by a clearly defined process  

Jurors present the most broad challenge. It is best to assume they are intelligent but unfamiliar, and attentive but easily overwhelmed. Your task is to make the unfamiliar comprehensible without talking down to them, or diluting the substance of your opinion: 

• Use careful pacing 

• Provide clear analogies 

• Maintain a tone that respects their role as decision-makers 

Jurors do not need to become experts themselves—they need to understand enough to trust your conclusions and weigh them appropriately within the context of the case. 

A Teaching Role 

Your role is to inform, not persuade. That distinction is critical, and it must be reflected in both content and demeanor. When experts begin to sound like they are trying to win the case, their credibility suffers. Judges are inclined to discount testimony that appears biased or overstated. Your strength lies in neutrality.  

This does not mean you should be passive. You are allowed to be confident in your conclusions, and you should be prepared to defend them. But that defense must be rooted in method, not emotion. Avoid language that signals advocacy—terms like “clearly,” “obviously,” or “without question” can undermine your objectivity. Instead, focus on explaining how you arrived at your conclusions, what assumptions you made, and what limitations apply. Precision is more persuasive than passion. Security, privacy, and compliance expert Rebecca Herold looks for unspoken signals indicating the recipient understands:  

[T]he more you teach, the more you learn how to communicate better with those in specific situations as applicable. In one of my testimonies [. . .] the judge was asking me specific questions about how the technology works. I realized he wanted to know how it worked technically because he doesn’t have that background, then, I was explaining it to him using examples of how it would be similar to other daily situations. [. . .] What I loved about that was the fact that I got to communicate directly to the judge—and I can tell by the way he’s asking me questions and how he’s looking at me whether or not he understands. That helped me to adjust my description or my examples. 

Get on the Same Page 

Before any deposition, hearing, or trial, you should meet with the trial team to align on expectations. These conversations are essential for ensuring that your communication supports the broader legal narrative without compromising your independence. Start by clarifying the key issues: 

• What questions are you being asked to answer?  

• What facts are in dispute?  

• What terminology might be unfamiliar to the factfinder?  

Attorneys may not know what needs to be explained, so it may be your job to flag concepts that require translation. This is especially important when your field involves specialized models or technical jargon. Identifying these areas early allows you to prepare analogies, visual aids, or simplified explanations that preserve accuracy while enhancing accessibility. 

You should also discuss strategic boundaries:  

• Are there topics you should avoid?  

• Are there areas where opposing counsel is likely to probe?  

• What tone and level of detail does the attorney prefer?  

Some lawyers want concise, direct answers; others prefer elaboration. Understanding these preferences helps you calibrate your style to the engagement. The goal is to be a reliable, disciplined communicator who supports the case without becoming a liability. 

Communicate with Precision 

Effective expert communication is often translation. Your audience may not share your technical vocabulary, but they can grasp complex ideas if those ideas are framed clearly and logically. That means using plain language where possible, defining terms when necessary, and structuring your explanations in a way that builds understanding step by step. 

Commercial litigator and expert witness Erik Groothuis notes:  

[I]t’s about storytelling at the end of the day. Yes, you [must] have the chops and the expertise, but you also—as the cliche goes—[must] be able to explain it to your grandmother or to your eight-year-old. You have to be able to understand and explain it in a way that somebody who’s not an expert can understand. It’s amazing to me how many people who have subject matter expertise but can’t get out of their own way in terms of how they explain it. That’s important—particularly for a jury trial. 

Start with the concept, not the conclusion. Lay out the foundational idea, explain why it matters, and then walk through your reasoning. Use signposting to guide the listener: phrases like “first,” “next,” and “finally” help organize your thoughts and make your testimony easier to follow. Avoid jargon unless it is essential—and if it is, explain it carefully. Never assume familiarity, but do not condescend either. Treat your audience as intelligent but uninformed. 

A good analogy illuminates without distorting. It connects the unfamiliar to the familiar in a way that preserves the integrity of the concept. Avoid analogies that oversimplify or introduce misleading parallels. If you use one, be explicit about its limits, and always return to the technical foundation—analogies are tools, not substitutes. 

Like analogies, visual aids can be extremely useful in communicating complex topics efficiently. Mycologist Dr. Nik Money uses them extensively:  

My work as a professor, teacher, and researcher informs what I might do in the courtroom in trying to distill often-complicated facts in a way that a jury can grapple with [. . .] That’s my job—and that’s not for a second to suggest that I’m dumbing things down—that’s not the truth. Juries are tasked with a difficult charge. Hopefully, I can make my way through the available evidence and explain it to a broad audience. If I can’t, then I’ve failed as a teacher. Science should be accessible to the public and members of the jury that have no scientific training. 

Showing that in a graphical form is helpful. Sometimes there’s time available in the courtroom to present that evidence to the jury, but it helps to have it. We’re a visual species, and it helps to show things in a visual fashion. Otherwise, I try to break things down. There’s usually no need to get into the different Latin names of fungi present but getting at the number of particles in mold contamination is important. Using photographs showing the extent of mold growth or other fungal damage that we could talk about in a property, and then comparing the present case, the one that the jury is wrestling with, to some of the worst cases and sometimes that can be powerful. 

Pitfalls 

Expert witnesses face several recurring traps which may stem from good intentions. One of the most common is overexplaining—answering more than is asked, elaborating beyond the scope of the question, or volunteering information that hasn’t been requested. This can confuse the factfinder, open doors for cross-examination, or introduce ambiguity into the record. Discipline is key: answer the question asked, and stop. Dog expert Jill Kessler-Miller makes it her creed:  

I read over a note that I bring to every deposition. It’s taped to my printer, and it says, “Don’t speculate. Only answer the questions you’ve been asked and shut up.” That’s for me because I tend to talk too much and end up offering more information than is wanted or needed. Those are my reminders to do those things.  

On the other hand, it is important answering what is asked doesn’t mean you should allow yourself to get railroaded into false yes/no dichotomies, according to IP attorney Mark McKenna:  

As an expert, you should never be cornered into answering a question with yes or no when it’s not a yes or no question. Something that the lawyers often do is to try to twist what experts are doing by asking questions in a way that flattens out ambiguities or complexity. I know why they do that as a lawyer. Experts should not give in to treating questions as yes or no questions when they’re not. On the other hand, I think it’s usually a mistake for an expert to [. . .] advocate on behalf and to be seen like they’re fighting. It’s much more effective to try to be professorial about it and to say, “These are the things that are important to my opinion and that I believe.” And, “These are areas where it’s more complicated.” In those cases, sometimes fighting the “yes” or “no” can come across as being more argumentative than helpful. 

Another trap is talking down to the audience. Lay factfinders may lack technical fluency, but they are not unintelligent. Overcompensating—either by oversimplifying or by flooding them with detail—can alienate or frustrate. The goal is to respect their intelligence while acknowledging their unfamiliarity. Speak clearly, explain patiently, and check for understanding when appropriate. Your tone should be collegial, not pedagogical. 

Speculation is another danger. If you don’t know, say so. If a question falls outside your expertise, say so. If you are asked to assume facts not in evidence, clarify the assumption and its implications. Speculation invites challenge, and it can undermine your credibility. Stay grounded in your methods, your data, and your domain. Precision is your shield, and restraint is your ally. Forensic security expert Mark Stuart recommends:  

How do you take a difficult concept or problem and make it simple? It’s a skill, and I have a process for doing that. I’ll pull all the evidence together. I like to use graphics, I like to enact, I want pictures—and you explain them with an example. [. . .] I’ll pull all the evidence together. I’ll develop a scientific conclusion. Then, I’ll talk about the method I used. Then when you get ready to talk about what you think happened—your opinion—you need to talk about the degree of certainty. Be careful. “This is probably called this.” [. . .] I have my photos, my sketches, and lastly, I give my opinion. You fully support it—and you should never talk about something [where] you don’t know what you’re talking about. 

Conclusion 

Expert witnesses are most effective when they communicate with precision, restraint, and a clear understanding of their role. This begins in collaboration with counsel, where scope and expectations are defined, and continues through testimony that adapts to the needs of attorneys, judges, and jurors. Successful engagements depend on presenting technical reasoning in a way that is accessible but free of unnecessary elaboration. The strength of expert input lies in how effectively expertise is conveyed. 

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!