What Expert Witnesses Want from Attorneys 

By Noah Bolmer 

Over time, expert witnesses notice which attorney traits make their work more efficient to perform and more resilient to defend. In most cases, they receive clear direction, timely materials, and consistent engagement. Nevertheless, they occasionally encounter late revisions, missing documents, or vague instructions that complicate the process. These differences shape how experts approach the work and how confident they feel presenting it. 

Communication 

Trust between attorney and expert depends on candor. If attorneys withhold information or misrepresent the procedural posture of a case, they compromise the expert’s ability to produce a reliable opinion. Insurance expert Thomas McCloskey describes how this kind of breakdown can unfold: 

A good attorney gives me the information and does not try to push me in one direction or another. [. . .] They answer the questions, and I try not to waste their time. [. . .] We spend a large amount of time together; an attorney who lies to you is the worst. I had two telling me untruthful things, which led me in the wrong direction. One did not tell me [a] claim was denied. This was post-denial—a whole different set of circumstances than what I was led to [believe]. Good attorneys give you the information, let you sit down, and do what you do. 

Accurate information early in the engagement helps experts form opinions they can stand behind. When key details are missing or unclear, the risk of misalignment grows as the case progresses toward deposition or trial. Experts rely on straightforward communication and complete records to do their work effectively. Initial conversations between attorney and expert often shape the expert’s understanding of the case. If those conversations are vague or distorted, the expert may begin work on a flawed foundation. Fitness expert Dr. Laura Miele explains how this disconnect can affect the relationship: 

From the onset of the phone call, [good attorneys] provide the facts, and do not give me their skewed facts. That creates a positive experience because [. . . if] when you get the case file and review it, it is not the way it was told to you, you then must have this difficult conversation with an attorney that will not create a positive environment. You want positive communication. [You want to hear], “This is what I need you for. This is what happened.” They are on point and communicative. They are not condescending. 

Setting Expectations 

Experts want to begin with a clear understanding of what happened and what is being asked of them. That clarity allows them to assess scope, identify potential issues, and determine whether the engagement is appropriate. It also reduces the likelihood of midstream corrections, which can be costly and difficult to manage. Finance and securities expert Dr. Pavritha Kumar advises:  

[Respect] the position you put the expert in. Not trying to force the expert to go out of his or her scope. Not trying to squeeze in changes to their opinion at the last minute. Again, I have experienced this, unfortunately, with some attorneys. On the day of filing, [they] try to make somewhat material changes to the language of the expert report. [. . .] Attorneys should be respectful of experts in that regard and understand the scope of this expert’s report and make sure that the expert stays within their lane. Veering out of their lane is one of the ripest areas for attack in cross-examination—if not the biggest area of potential critique for an expert report. [Attorneys] do their best to prepare you for surprise attacks and cross-examination, taking the time to do a thorough deposition and trial prep with you if the case reaches that stage. All of that helps to build mutual understanding, respect, and trust.  

Sport management expert Professor Gil Fried describes a different kind of misalignment: unclear expectations around deliverables. When attorneys request a report without first discussing tone, purpose, or intended use, the result may not meet their needs. He recalls: 

The [cases] that are more challenging are when an attorney says, “I want you to write a report.” [. . .] and then it comes back red lined for every single word. “I didn’t like this word.” If you are going to be that way as an attorney, tell me ahead of time so I can prepare myself and I can save you money instead of me spending all this time writing what I think is going to be a strong report. 

This kind of revision cycle may be avoidable. Medical product regulatory expert Steve Silverman explains: 

For the attorney, all I would say is this: I get it—I get that you are busy. I get that you have 100 plates that you are trying to keep spinning. I am just one of those plates. Your job is not to ensure that all my needs are met in the timeline that works best for me. Understood. My job is to make things easier for you, and to give you what you need so that you can have the best outcome that you want to achieve for your client. To do that, let’s get clear very early on in terms of what the deliverable is. How it’s going to be delivered? What is a good outcome for you? What does a good product look like and when do you need it? Invest the time on the front end to clarify those basic issues in consultation with the experts, so that there is a clear view as to what the expert will be providing, and if there is any discrepancy between what you’re trying to develop in terms of your case theory and what the expert can credibly say—bring that to the surface soon. Create an environment in which that information is communicated by the expert at an early point in time.  

Materials Overload 

Attorneys must weigh the need to get experts everything that they might need to prepare with not wanting to overload them with superfluous case materials. DEA Compliance and pharmaceutical quality expert Benjamin Mink describes the friction:  

…[T]he challenge is time, right? I mean we only have so much time before the report is due, so much time before the deposition is due. You would love to be able to say, “I can look at and retain every piece of information that they give me.” There’s sort of a two-sided coin. One, it’s great if counsel gives you anything and everything because you know you may see something that otherwise they might have thought wasn’t important, that you picked up on, that could be critically important as the expert. And so, by limiting the amount of information they give you, they sort of do themselves a little bit of a disservice. But at the same time, they have to be careful not to inundate you so much with so much useless information that you can’t find what’s critically important in the data.  

He continues, advocating for a piecemeal approach: 

I think it is a balance, and different law firms have approached this differently. I’ve worked with several, both big and small. Some give you information in pieces and chunks, and that works. Sometimes it’s nice, because you’re not overwhelmed and they have some key things they want you to look at early on, which I think is a really smart way to do it. And then they continue to sort of feed you new information, as that goes. But again, that all depends on the amount of time you have. Because there are instances where they’ve had an expert that couldn’t deliver, or something went sideways, and they have a very short runway, and so there may not be much of a choice but to give you a very large quantity of files in a short amount of time. 

Administrative Support 

Written reports require careful formatting and proofreading. When attorneys offer clerical support, the expert can focus on analysis. Mr. McCloskey describes a system that improves efficiency and reduces error: 

The other thing [good attorneys] do is loan you their clerical staff. You do your report, forward it to the attorney, and they give it to their clerical staff who go through it, correct your spelling and syntax [. . .] They send it back to you and you approve or disapprove it, and send the thing back. They put it in its final form, which you sign. 

This arrangement keeps the expert focused on substance. The attorney’s staff handles formatting and minor corrections, which improves readability without altering the expert’s conclusions. The result is a more cost-effective engagement, and a cleaner document that still reflects the expert’s voice and meets the standards required for submission. 

Attorney Availability 

Experts pay attention to how involved attorneys are in the case. They recognize when counsel is actively participating and when contact is limited to staff. While delegation is often necessary, certain aspects of the engagement—such as framing the scope of analysis, clarifying procedural posture, and preparing for testimony—require direct attorney input. When that input is missing, the expert may struggle to align their work with the attorney’s strategy. Dr. Miele explains how attorney availability affects the working relationship: 

I think another aspect of a positive relationship is that you can tell that the attorney is involved in the case. Sometimes, it is not that [the attorney is] not involved, but they are busy, and they have a paralegal doing more of the contact with you. I prefer to have [direct] contact with the attorney [. . .] it leads to a more positive experience because it is smoother, easier, and less time-consuming. 

She also reflects on how timing affects the engagement, comparing cases that begin with early coordination to those that start under tighter deadlines: 

You have some attorneys who want everything from the beginning. They want to help you with discovery, which is fabulous because you can provide them with questions for assisted suggested discovery. Then you have attorneys who are like, “I need a report done last week” and they throw a stack of papers on your lap. If that happens and I am too busy, I have to turn it down. I cannot handle a case that I cannot fully work it up properly. 

Experts are more likely to accept and succeed in engagements where the attorney is prepared and available to discuss the case directly. That level of involvement signals respect for the expert’s time and reinforces the shared goal of producing reliable work. 

Humility and a Willingness to Learn 

Expert witnesses often work with attorneys who are unfamiliar with the technical or scientific aspects of a case. That gap is not a barrier when the attorney is open to learning. Experts consistently describe stronger collaborations when attorneys listen closely, ask thoughtful questions, and show interest in the subject matter. Safety expert John Lauhoff values attorneys who treat the engagement as a learning opportunity. He explains: 

An attorney that wants to learn and wants to listen—that’s key, I think. [. . .When] the one that hires you is very interested in learning everything that you know—you’ve got to approach it as a teacher. Neither one of you can act as the superior person. You’re a team [. . .] [Attorneys] are experts on the legal strategy—they know what they have to do there, but they [may not] know anything about the subject matter, so you have to teach them the subject matter. 

Engineering expert Rand Decker echoes this view, emphasizing the value of intellectual humility. He describes how attorneys earn his trust: 

I respect [attorneys’] skills as counselors of the law, and I find in a hurry that I’m attracted to people that provide some respect for what they don’t know, [but] I do, and that’s the basis of the relationship [. . .] [F]rankly, a lot of litigators don’t know yet what they don’t know, but the wise ones know [where] they’re ignorant. There’s nothing wrong with ignorance. There’s a lot wrong with stupidity, but if you’re ignorant, there’s room to [. . .] backfill that ignorance, to the point that you and the attorney are successful knitting together the technical arguments that the attorney will proceed with legally, and that you will back up technically. 

Decker’s framing reflects a common expert perspective: the most effective attorneys are those who recognize the limits of their technical knowledge and work collaboratively to close those gaps. That process strengthens both the legal and technical dimensions of the case. 

Some experts prefer working with attorneys who already have experience in their field. Technology expert Dr. Istvan Jonyer notes that shared background can reduce friction and improve alignment: 

In my experience, what makes a good relationship is a similar background. If the attorneys [. . .] are litigating the same types of cases that we’re working on together, that makes it a lot smoother than if they don’t have that background, [otherwise] It’s difficult to have a shared understanding and there are just a lot more opportunities for misalignment [and] misunderstanding. 

While technical fluency is not a requirement, familiarity with the expert’s domain can streamline communication and reduce the need for translation. Attorneys who are accustomed to working with experts in a given field tend to anticipate what the engagement requires and avoid common pitfalls. 

Conclusion 

Expert witnesses rely on conditions that support clarity and independence. They notice when attorneys are prepared and communicative. They respond to timely materials and a clear understanding of the case. When attorneys stay engaged and listen closely, experts are able to deliver analysis that holds up under scrutiny. Strong collaborations emerge when each party respects the other’s role. Attorneys shape the legal strategy; experts provide the technical foundation. When that exchange is thoughtful and consistent, the engagement runs more smoothly and produces work that’s easier to apply throughout the litigation process. 

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! 

Update (November 2025 from March 2024): We have added several new paragraphs to this article based on recent podcast
interviews.