Direct Examination of Expert Witnesses: Help Them Tell Their Story
Many lawyers are concerned about how to deal with an expert witness. Interestingly enough, the same rules and concepts that apply to questions for lay witnesses, also apply to an expert witness.
May 10, 2018 at 01:18 PM
5 minute read
Many lawyers are concerned about how to deal with an expert witness. Interestingly enough, the same rules and concepts that apply to questions for lay witnesses, also apply to an expert witness. If you properly ask the questions, you can control the flow of information. Direct examination will always start with a “w” (who, what, where, why and when) or “how” or “describe.” That is how lay witnesses are examined and that's how expert witnesses are examined.
The kind of experts we see in family law include psychologists, psychiatrists, business appraisers, social workers, and realtors, as well as appraisers for “stuff” like coins, furniture or cars.
In preparation for an expert's testimony, please ensure that they have always complied with their own standards or guidelines. For example, in Pennsylvania, the American Psychological Association Guidelines for use in child custody cases are mandated by their ethical standards. Make sure they have used them. Indeed, when a psychologist is appointed to do a custody evaluation, ask the court to include in the order appointing them that they must use the APA Guidelines. You can also ask that they not give a recommendation but simply provide the facts to the court so the court may properly make its own recommendation.
When a report is received, obviously counsel must understand it in order to present it. If you are not familiar with any part or concept in a report, meet with another expert to gain expertise. Don't get caught in a game of “gotcha” because you will probably lose unless you are on very sturdy ground.
If the expert is a business appraiser, know their credentials and understand the difference between fair value versus fair market value in their appraisals. (New Jersey uses fair value, Pennsylvania uses fair market value.) Certainly you must be familiar with Revenue Rule 59-60.
If you're calling an accountant, again, review his credentials. Any testimony should be based on “generally accepted accounting principles.” You should be aware of the Internal Revenue Code that is germane to the topic being discussed and certainly with the new tax code and its implications in family law. Review any revenue rulings that apply to their testimony.
When calling a psychiatrist in your case, after you review his credentials, find out what they know about the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM V). All diagnoses are based on the DSM V. Review the diagnoses and look for the list of characteristics that must be found for their assessment. (By the way, if you are doing a lot of custody work, you ought to have a copy of the DSM V on your shelf.)
Direct examination is the most important part of the case. This is your opportunity to educate the judge. Not all judges are knowledgeable about all subjects, no matter how many cases they have had. As such, the presentation of the case must be clear and concise. The questions to the expert should be formed so the expert speaks in “English” not “expertise.” If there is more than one syllable in a word, have them break it down. Most judges have not experienced these kinds of experts in their own practices. They are as naive about these big words as you are. If you do not understand the words, the court certainly does not. Just keep saying, “Would you explain that, please.”
Any question to which an objection is drawn or to which a leading question is raised, can be rephrased to make them nonleading. Just remember, who, what, where, why and when will start any nonleading question.
The purpose of your examination is to illicit the story of your financial case or your custody case. Your questions are open-ended and they do not suggest the answer.
Every case has a story. What is yours? Your story will go through your entire case but certainly incorporates your expert witness. If you have a story, it will engage the judge.
Remember the “KISS” principle. Keep your story simple so the judge stays engaged.
When you question your expert, remember that how you start the question will determine how your expert witness will answer. Remember your purpose is to get the expert's opinion, but with support. Set up the testimony with what they did, why they did it, how they did it, who they spoke with and what conclusions they reached. Then you will be a real civil lawyer.
Remember that on direct examination the spotlight is on the witness and they get to tell the story. Help them do it.
Lynne Z. Gold-Bikin is a partner in the family law group at Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby and has frequently appeared on major television networks and has been quoted in prominent newspapers and magazines discussing domestic issues. Contact her at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readSupreme Court's Ruling in 'Students for Fair Admissions' and Its Impact on DEI Initiatives in the Workplace
6 minute readMembership Has Its Privileges: Bankruptcy Court Examines LLC's Authority to File Bankruptcy
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-68
- 2Friday Newspaper
- 3Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 4Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 5NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250