Venues for Expert Witnesses: Administrative Hearings

By Noah Bolmer

Administrative hearings occupy a middle ground between agency processes and courtroom litigation, and that position changes the role of expert witnesses. The hearings are designed to resolve disputes within a regulatory framework, which means procedure, evidentiary standards, and the expectations placed on experts to diverge from what they encounter in trial. Exploring those differences reveals how experts must adapt their preparation and presentation when the forum shifts from the courtroom to the administrative arena. 

Background 

Administrative hearings in the United States grew out of the expansion of the administrative state during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In 1887, Congress created the first regulatory agency; the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), followed by the Food and Drug Administration(FDA) in 1906, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in 1914. These agencies were tasked with enforcing complex regulatory schemes, and it became clear that specialized disputes required resolution outside the traditional courtroom. Administrative hearings provided a way to adjudicate matters efficiently while relying on subject matter expertise. The Progressive Era emphasized the value of technical knowledge in governance, and administrative hearings became a mechanism to integrate that expertise into decision-making. 

The New Deal accelerated this development. Faced with the economic crisis of the Great Depression, Congress created dozens of new agencies, each with its own enforcement and adjudicatory responsibilities. This “alphabet soup” of agencies relied heavily on administrative hearings to resolve disputes ranging from labor relations to securities regulation. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 formalized the process, establishing uniform standards for hearings, rulemaking, and judicial review. The Act also introduced the role of Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), ensuring that hearings were presided over by legally trained officials rather than agency staff, and providing procedural safeguards to protect fairness. 

Today, administrative hearings remain a central feature of the regulatory landscape in contexts ranging from social security claims to environmental enforcement. While often less formal than trials, they are still structured through processes governed by statutory and regulatory frameworks, with evidentiary rules adapted to the needs of each agency. Judicial review by federal or state courts provides an external check, but the hearings themselves are designed to balance efficiency with fairness. This evolution reflects the enduring role of administrative hearings as a bridge between specialized regulatory expertise and the broader legal system. 

Evidentiary Standards and Procedural Differences 

Administrative hearings function as quasi-judicial proceedings overseen by Administrative Law Judges or hearing officers. They are designed to address disputes arising under regulatory authority, with procedures that emphasize clarity and efficiency. While there are broad similarities, there may be important differences in new administrative venues that should always be discussed with your engaging attorney. Key features include: 

• Presiding officials. ALJs or hearing officers conduct hearings and issue decisions. 

• Evidence rules. Admissibility standards are less rigid, allowing reliable hearsay as well as technical reports. 

• Discovery. Often more limited than in civil litigation and focused on documents directly relevant to the dispute. 

• Format. Proceedings rely heavily on written submissions, and those are only supplemented by oral testimony. 

• Review. Decisions may be appealed within the administrative courts or parties may choose to move to a federal or state court venue 

The structure of administrative hearings departs from jury trial practice in several ways. Juries are absent, which changes how disputes are resolved and places responsibility entirely on the presiding authority. Discovery is usually narrower, reducing the scope of pre-hearing maneuvering and keeping proceedings more focused. Evidentiary rules are applied with greater flexibility, allowing material that might be excluded in court to be considered if it is probative. Hearings also tend to move at a faster pace, with written submissions often carrying significant weight. Importantly, procedures vary across federal, state, and local bodies: some hearings mirror courtroom formality, while others are streamlined and pragmatic, reflecting the priorities of the particular regulatory or adjudicatory system. 

Some administrative systems also incorporate arbitration‑style proceedings, but with panels composed of professionals rather than laypersons. In these settings, disputes are resolved through further streamlined hearings, and the arbitrators are often drawn from the relevant industry or discipline. This structure preserves the efficiency of arbitration while ensuring that technical or regulatory issues are judged by individuals with specialized knowledge, further distinguishing administrative practice from the jury‑based model of trial courts. 

Expert Witnesses in the Administrative Arena 

Administrative hearings shape the way expertise is used. The rules of evidence, the pace of proceedings, and the type of decision-maker all influence how testimony enters the record. Examples from a few types of hearings: 

• Social Security Disability Hearings. Medical records and vocational experts are central, with judges often asking direct questions about a claimant’s ability to perform specific work. 

• Workers’ Compensation Hearings. Medical testimony is actively contested, and hearing officers probe into causation to determine whether injuries are truly work-related. 

• Professional Licensing Boards. Panels of practitioners expect technical explanations aligned with professional standards, shifting the focus from simplification to precision. 

• Environmental Enforcement Hearings. Scientific reports and compliance data are admitted more readily, with the emphasis on whether evidence demonstrates regulatory compliance. 

Bioengineering expert Dr. Chris Daft describes his experience in administrative hearings: 

Enjoyable cases are the International Trade Commission ones. I’ve done two of those which have gone to bench trials. The great thing [about] that is the administrative law judge typically has a lot of technical knowledge. [. . .] The direct exam is written so that doesn’t happen during the trial, but after cross examination I’ve been examined by the judge, which is great. First, these folks are up on technology. Secondly, their goal is a greater understanding rather than trying to trip me up. That sort of testimony is always an absolute joy. 

Expert participation in administrative hearings varies with the forum. Some settings emphasize documentary evidence; others involve adversarial questioning, and still others rely on technical dialogue with peers. Because the procedures are not uniform, experts must be prepared to adjust their approach. Always consult your engaging attorney when working in a new venue. Medical product regulatory expert Steve Silverman warns:  

I got a call one day from an attorney at a law firm who was referred to me by one of his partners, whom I had worked with professionally. He said, “I have this work, and we need an FDA expert regulatory witness. Is this something you are interested in doing?” I said with great confidence, and little ability, “Sure, no problem. I can do it.” I can tell you definitively that engagement was a hard fail. I’m happy to say there have been subsequent positive experiences, but the hubris I brought into the process assuming that I could be an effective expert witness simply because of my prior litigation experiences, training as a lawyer, etcetera. Not knowing what I know now, it was ridiculous that I blithely assumed that I could do a good job without doing basic homework. 

Appeals and Review 

Typically, administrative systems provide a path for appeal or review either within the agency itself or through judicial oversight. Internal appeals may involve a higher administrative body reexamining the record, while judicial review usually focuses on whether the agency acted within its authority and followed proper procedure. Expert reports and testimony become part of the record that is scrutinized on appeal. A medical evaluation in a disability case, a technical analysis in a licensing dispute, or a compliance report in an enforcement action may be dissected for sufficiency and reliability. The durability of expert input depends on how well it aligns with the evidentiary standards of the forum. 

Conclusion 

In administrative hearings, the expert’s primary contribution is to support the regulatory framework. Reports carry weight when they present complex material with clarity, methodological soundness, and a direct connection to governing standards. Rather than broad adversarial framing, the process depends on focused, technical exchanges that strengthen the record. What distinguishes the administrative arena is not a change in the expert’s core role, but in how that role is applied in building a record that can withstand agency review. 

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.