If ever we needed a lesson in the fallibility of expertise, the past year has rendered it in spades. As Americans struggled to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic, the public performance of the "experts"—the ones prancing to the podium, not the ones working quietly in their labs to develop life-saving vaccines—have ranged from inconsistent to disingenuous, with a healthy dose of hubris thrown in for good measure. For those disposed to defer to authority, it has been a sobering slog. Yet within the morass of misinformation reposes an important message for lawyers and judges who are called upon to assess the reliability of expertise in the courtroom: Expert utterances need to be assessed with a massive measure of skepticism.