Additionally, it is absolutely critical to review an expert’s history of Daubert challenges and disqualifications. At the outset, an attorney should review a potential expert’s qualifications and experience to make sure that the expert has substantive expertise in the relevant subject matter and no prior reports or testimony conflict with the case the expert is currently being considered for. While expert needs can evolve over the life of the case, it generally makes sense to retain an expert as early as possible to help with case strategy.Ī testifying expert’s qualifications are almost always challenged. Generally, no information about consulting experts is discoverable while testifying experts are disclosed to the other side and involved in pre-trial discovery.
#Advantages of being an expert witness over a lay witness trial#
A testifying expert, on the other hand, may be used at trial to present evidence. A consulting expert has been retained or consulted with by a party in anticipation of litigation or trial, but who will not testify at trial. While experts have many different possible uses, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) and (b)(4), experts fall into two general categories: consulting experts and testifying experts.
They can assist with (i) assessing the value of a case (ii) formulating claims, counterclaims, and defenses (iii) drafting discovery requests and responses (iv) reviewing documents (v) challenging the other side’s experts (vi) developing and refining case strategy (vii) identifying, evaluating, and calculating damages (viii) evaluating and responding to opposing claims and theories and (ix) aiding the factfinder through trial testimony.
0 kommentar(er)
