In this episode…

Professor J.W. Verret advises responding to potential engagements within an hour. Even if you are the ideal expert for a matter, attorneys will reach out to other qualified candidates, and it is a race to respond first. Promptness is a virtue for expert witnesses—and that extends to the vetting process.

Check out the entire episode for our discussion on mentors, lining up your credentials, and AI writing tools.

 

Note: Transcript has been lightly edited for clarity 

Host: Noah Bolmer, Round Table Group

Guest: JW Verret, Professor of Corporate Securities Law / Financial Accounting at George Mason Law School

Noah Bolmer: Welcome to Engaging Experts. I’m your host, Noah Bolmer, and I’m excited to welcome Professor J.W. Verret to the show. Professor Verret teaches corporate securities law and financial accounting at George Mason Law School. Additionally, he’s a published author, practicing attorney, and sought-after expert witness specializing in securities and corporate litigation, forensic accounting, and fraud examination. Professor holds a JD and master’s from Harvard Professor Verret, thank you for joining me here on Engaging Experts.

J.W. Verret: It’s great to be here with you, Noah at the Round Table.

Noah Bolmer: You’ve made a career in academia but continue to practice as an attorney and expert witness. How do you find the time?

J.W. Verret: To be honest, when I started in my twenties as an academic, my portfolio made sense. As I got older and my family grew. I have four boys at home.

Noah Bolmer: Wow.

J.W. Verret: I have a flexible career, which gives me the opportunity to do that. It’s also true that practice and expert work makes me a better teacher. I’m able to be both a tenured academic who publishes in academic publications and articles that survive the rigors of tenure but also are written with the design of being useful in corporate and securities law questions that are actively litigated in court. I find grounding in academia as a tenured expert makes me a better expert, and working as an expert in practice makes me a better teacher, so there are synergies all around.

Noah Bolmer: There are synergies all around. Do you use any particular scheduling techniques? Is there calendar software or something that you like to use to keep your days organized?

J.W. Verret:  I use Google Calendar, but when folks use Calendly, I respond to that. The world seems to be shifting in that direction a little, particularly in your area of the world. The Silicon Valley folks love Calendly, but Google Calendar does a good job of keeping me in line, and I have a lot of clients with different preferences. Some people are into Teams. Some people are into other ways of communicating. I’m on a lot of platforms, and that’s part of being independent with [many] affiliations and roles. You have to be ready to check a lot of e-mail addresses and platforms. That’s part of the game.

Noah Bolmer: Being nimble is good advice. How did you first get started in expert witnessing? Did you get a call out of the blue? Is it something that you were looking for?

J.W. Verret: It was something I was looking for. My mentor, Professor Lucian Bebchuk at Harvard School, had done a good bit of it in his career. I was hoping [my expert witness career] would grow, and I got an opportunity very early in my career. I was 28 years old the first time I was an expert in a matter involving a pension funds lawsuit against the CEO of Sprint. It was the deep end of the water here. The allegation was that the CEO wasn’t straight with the world about his own personal tax problems. As a result of some issues, he put his options package into a tax shelter that the IRS had deemed void but that he still owed taxes on. In other words, he had an options package that didn’t incentivize him at all because it was worthless, but he still had a lot of taxes, so he was personally bankrupt. The question was, is that material or not? I took on the opportunity. I was very young and believed, and still believe, I was qualified, but I was very young, and it was very early [in my career]. I went through a seven hour deposition with a lawyer from Cravath. It was a trial by fire, but I survived it. The case settled, and I’ve gone from there.

Noah Bolmer: As somebody who has been through law school myself, they don’t prep you for being an expert witness. What it’s like from that side? You mentioned that you had some mentoring. Did you find that valuable and what in particular did you take away from it? What would you recommend for newer expert witnesses’ vis-vis getting a mentor and making the best use of one?

J.W. Verret: This is hard because most mentoring in the expert field comes from working at expert firms. There are not a lot of ways to get it otherwise. Experience is the best teacher, but that can be very dangerous because of a couple of bad Dauberts, and a couple of bad testimonies, and your career’s over. Making those mistakes early is dangerous because once you get in the hot seat, you are making a record that exists forever. I was lucky that I had the opportunity to testify in Congress a number of times right after the financial crisis and before the Dodd-Frank Act. Within a couple of years, I had an opportunity to testify in the House and the Senate about a dozen times about corporate governance, securities, and accounting issues. That gave me an opportunity to learn the discipline of communications. To some extent, I take off my academic hat and explore a lot of different hypotheticals, and I am willing to take any opinion, debate it, and then back away from the opinion I took to change my opinion. That is the academic way of thinking. Instead of engaging in disciplined communications where the members are very heavily prepped. [The opposing counsel] is looking to get a sound bite and make you look ridiculous with that sound bite. Being in that environment has translated to an expert environment. It was a good way to learn how to be disciplined about exactly what you intend to say and to respond to a question with what you intend to say.

Noah Bolmer: So, new expert witnesses should just testify before Congress to get some experience.

J.W. Verret: It worked for me. For other experts out there, you can’t avoid working in an expert firm, backing up another expert, and working through that apprenticeship.

Noah Bolmer: Speaking of firms, have expert witness referral services been a boon to you? Is that something that has helped you get work and improve your work?

J.W. Verret: Yes, especially early on. I have my own firm, Veritas, and I have an affiliation with you guys at Round Table Group. It’s a great combination. I do my own marketing and try to get myself out there, but I love it when I get a call from you guys. It’s always a case that is well-curated and well-designed to fit the work I’ve already done. It’s great.

Noah Bolmer: Let’s talk about the phone calls you get from either the attorney or an attorney’s representative, maybe a paralegal. How do you vet that job in terms of a) whether you are the correct expert in terms of subject matter and b) whether it is something that’s going to work? Are you going to click with this team? What’s the calculus that goes into making that decision?

J.W. Verret: I would say it’s three things. First, am I an expert in the subject matter? Am I going to end up assuming, and every attorney thinks everything’s going to settle, but assuming this goes all the way to trial, what does that Daubert look like? I’m sitting in a Daubert chair for three hours and what happens to me at the end of that? I don’t want to take on something that’s outside my range of expertise. I went through one Daubert experience, got through it, and was named an expert in exactly what I was going to be an expert for. That’s not to say it’s career-ending if you try for something outside your area, but that means that sub-area is going to be used against you, even in other areas where you do have the appropriate focus and expertise. You want to be careful about that.

[Second,] you want to make sure that you agree with the position. I’m not going to get behind a position I don’t agree with. There’s going to be uncertainty and unclear things. That’s not to say you need to believe that person is guilty or not guilty in a white-collar criminal matter, or you need to believe that one side or the other should win. You have to understand the particular issue you’re being asked about, and you have to strongly agree with the position. It’s better to let something go if it’s not the right fit.

Third is professionalism. Am I going to have to hunt you down when the retainer is empty and it’s time to replenish it? If that’s a part of the engagement and it’s part of the engagement that I prefer. If that’s where this is going, then I don’t want to take that job either.

Noah Bolmer: One of the most difficult things for a newer expert witness is saying, “no” because they may not have as many opportunities as somebody with a long and storied career, such as yourself. When you first got started, did you turn down a significant number of potential engagements?

J.W. Verret: I erred on the side of turning things down. I turned down things that I could have pursued. Sometimes you wish you could go back. The other lesson I learned is that when you get a phone call, you respond right away. Within a few hours. It doesn’t matter if you’re on vacation. I had an experience when there was an opportunity I really wanted, and I missed the opportunity because I didn’t set my faculty voicemail to auto-forward to me. It just said I wasn’t in the office. They called another expert a few hours later, and [chose] that expert. Now, you better believe if you leave a message on my faculty voicemail, I’m going to get an e-mail about it within a couple of minutes, and I’m going to respond [immediately], even if I’m at a family dinner, we are going to chat.

Noah Bolmer: Absolutely. You’ve taken an engagement, and you’ve decided that you’re the right fit. Then you meet the trial team. Have you worked on fairly extensive trial teams that have multiple lawyers and multiple experts?

J.W. Verret: Sure. I did that recently in a case called U.S. versus Sterling Hoff, which was a $300 million money laundering criminal case [where I] worked with other experts and lawyers. In some ways, it was heartbreaking because the defendant was ultimately found guilty in that matter. For some parts of it, the lawyers rented a house in D.C. Three or four lawyers and two or three experts all lived in that house for a month. They had this frat house for a month. A lawyer’s dog was even there. It was an 18-hour a day prep before trial. Once the trial started, they would go home, get a bite, and then prep, prep, prep. I spent a lot of time in that little frat house prepping and made some friendships for life as part of that experience.

Noah Bolmer: That’s important, and it’s something that I hear from newer expert witnesses. They’re not exactly sure how to go about meeting other experts. Besides being forced into those situations where you’re on a team with other experts, what are some of the other ways that newer expert witnesses can get some questions answered from other more experienced experts?

J.W. Verret: That’s a hard question because either you’re in-house at one of the established firms or you’re a lone wolf. I’m a lone wolf. I look for opportunities to meet people at other academic or professional conferences like the American Bar Association. Some forensic accountants like the ACF. In my field, I would say go to the ACF meetings if you’re a forensic accountant in litigation. You’ll find other experts there to chat with. If you’re coming to it as a lawyer, which is a unique kind of expert that often doesn’t get opportunities to be experts, but sometimes gets a very niche opportunity to be an expert. You’ll find your tribe at the American Bar Association.

Noah Bolmer: Do you find that as an attorney, the expectations are different for you as an expert?

J.W. Verret:  It’s a different world. One of the great advantages that makes me unique is I am both a securities and corporate law professor and a recognized expert in forensic accounting. I wear two hats, and it’s like if you’ve ever done fantasy role-playing. Sometimes you can be both a wizard and a warrior. It means you have maybe a little less of the attributes of each one, but you also can get synergies being both. I multi-class. I’m a wizard and a warrior.

Noah Bolmer: So, you multi-class.

J.W. Verret: What that means is when I’m sitting in the deposition chair or when I’m writing a report, I understand all the working pieces of the case around my report. I understand my piece as a forensic accountant or as an economist. I understand my piece and what I’m doing there, but I also understand all the working parts of that report without the attorney needing to explain it to me. When I’m sitting in the deposition chair and an attorney has a new trick they want to try, I usually have a good sense of what they’re trying to get me to say that I don’t believe, but they’re trying to trick me into saying. It gives me a better instinct about that. That’s useful, and the hazard- the fight is that t the other side will say, “You’re trying to give an opinion as a lawyer, and that’s for the court to say, and we get to exclude it.” In that case, I’m well prepared to say, “No, that issue is an issue of both accounting and economics, and it has implications for law. It’s a multi-specialty issue.” I’m speaking to that question appropriately. That’s the advantage and you have to be prepared for the disadvantage if they try to disqualify everything you say on the basis of you being a lawyer. You have to be prepared for that fight.

Noah Bolmer: Right. I want to go back to that Daubert hearing that we were talking about before. That’s definitely a stress point for newer expert witnesses. Can you describe that process a little bit? How did it go, and what recommendations do you have for people who are about to go through their first one?

J.W. Verret: Yeah, this experience in the U.S. versus Sterling Hoff was a matter where it was high stakes because it was a criminal matter at this point. After the trial, the government was seeking thirty years for Mr. Sterling. It was alleged that he ran the largest Bitcoin mixer that mixed all the Bitcoin that came out of the Silk Road drug site. This was a $300 million money laundering accusation. I was there to provide expertise in a number of areas.

Noah Bolmer: Wow.

J.W. Verret: The first Daubert hearing was two days. I was in the chair for five or six hours getting grilled by an assistant US attorney who wanted a piece of me. On the other hand, it was a good experience. It wasn’t fun when it happened. You get these panic moments in your head, and one of the things I did was focus on my breathing. That’s what I do in every stressful situation. It’s called “box breathing” and it’s what the Navy Seals do. You inhale and keep inhaling for a couple of seconds, and then you exhale for a couple of seconds and then inhale again. If you practice that the whole time you’re out there, it’s going to provide you with a tremendous advantage. It’s going to relax your entire body and take down the temperature that opposing counsel is trying to bring up inside of you [allowing you to] focus on what you need to say. Box breathing, look it up. I highly recommend it for stressful situations like depositions, testimony, and cross-examination. It has helped me a lot with that experience.

What would I do differently? I would spend more time with my expert credentials. I’d have more references. It came up twelve months later as the government tried to limit what I could say. They would often say, “This wasn’t properly noted.” I was relying on the lawyers to properly note aspects of me. I probably should have been doing more to help the lawyers when they were focused on a million other things, and say, “You need to notify the government about the fact that I’m going to testify about this.” For example, during my Daubert, I did not mention that I was going to conduct forensic interviews of the defendant in prison. The Assistant U.S. attorney asked me, “Have you conducted forensic interviews in prison?” I said, “I just got on this case. I have not done that yet.” Then, I went ahead and did it. I would have thought that was sufficient notice to the government that I was going to do that, but the government raised their hands and said, “We had no notice that it was happening.” The lawyer said, “You asked him if he had done that, and he said it was a good idea, and before the trial started, we notified you about it.” The Assistant U.S. attorney said, “That it wasn’t enough time.” I didn’t get to talk about the forensic interviews that I conducted in prison because I should have thought that far ahead that I needed to include my initial disclosure. I wish I had now.

Noah Bolmer: Is that a failure of preparation? Is that something that your attorney should have handled before you went into it? Is that the sort of thing that experts need to be aware of going into the proceeding.

J.W. Verret: I’m not going to fail the attorneys because they were drinking from a fire hose. They were writing motions that were due the next day, every day. It was a pro bono matter. Nobody got paid, and we were all there because we believed in the case. I should have done more to think through what the attorneys need to do to help me and support me. What I should have done was have a supplemental filing after the Daubert saying, “We’re going to add to what he’s going to testify about.” Then specifically mention that item.

Noah Bolmer: Speaking of proceedings where you’re being impeached, you are a well-published author. You’ve written for several law journals, newspapers, et cetera. How do you keep track of all of that and avoid a situation where a judge, a panel, or someone is trying to impeach you on something that you may have said eighteen years ago that may or may not be applicable? Maybe you’ve changed your mind on something. How do you keep track of everything that you’ve written or said on a matter?

J.W. Verret: That’s interesting. I’ve always thought that would happen. It never has never happened and I’ve written many academic articles. Maybe it’s [my] style [of writing.] I do a good job of taking positions that are consistent with the general topics I’ve written on. I did have the experience of my Twitter feed being thrown at me in this criminal case. I happened to take the position my personal policy views are critical of government surveillance of private financial information. This was also a case where privacy was at issue. The right to have privacy and the use of Bitcoin and was this defendant using these privacy tools for his own personal privacy? That was part of this issue. So, the Assistant U.S. Attorney- and this is what you do when they think they have a surprise, got your moment. You embrace it and say, “Yep. Absolutely right. You’re absolutely right.” The U.S. Attorney says, “Did you tweet that financial surveillance is evil?” I said, “Counselor, that absolutely sounds like me. Yes, it can be evil when the government abuses financial surveillance, like Russia, Venezuela, and China has done. The U.S. has done it in some instances.” He thought I would shrink back in the chair, but I just grabbed it, jumped on it, and used it as an opportunity to start talking about why I believed that, and it helped the case. He opened a door, and he didn’t realize he didn’t want to open it. “Objection, your honor. He should answer yes or no.” But by then I’d already said my piece. The jury heard why I believe what I believe. I tweet a lot. I try to think more about every tweet that could be mentioned in court, but you have to own it, and you have to say- look at the jury and say, “I fired off a stupid tweet. Have you guys ever done that?” Something like that. You know, that happens.

Noah Bolmer: Become relatable with social media. There are two ways that you could go about it. You can avoid using social media at all and not have much of a public record of your personal views on anything, or as you say, you can own it. That’s an interesting dichotomy. Besides Twitter, do you use other social media that anybody can look up and see your views on any particular topic?

J.W. Verret: I find LinkedIn to be a great development tool for expert work. I love LinkedIn. Look at some point, somebody’s going to pull up some marketing that I do for myself and try to cheapen me, in which case I can say, “Everybody in business markets what they do. That doesn’t mean I’m going to come here and make something up to get some money from a single engagement because Counsel, I think, you know, the moment I get dinged in an opinion from a judge that limits my engagements going forward for the rest of my career and ruins my reputation.” I’ve got the speech lined up for that cross-examination.

Noah Bolmer: You mentioned marketing, and that’s an interesting topic. I’ve run into expert witnesses who don’t do any marketing, and I’ve run into expert witnesses who do different types of marketing. What have you found to be effective for your practice?

J.W. Verret: Docket monitoring and finding something that is the perfect case for you. For me, it’s a limited set of things that I need to monitor. SEC enforcement cases, obviously docket monitoring, finding a position you could get behind based on what you can tell from the public filings, and an introduction to a conversation. In terms of generally getting on the phone with lawyers. One thing that always works is if you see something they’ve done or published and the e-mail starts with. “I read your article, it’s great.” I’m always truthful about that. “I read your article. It’s great. Congrats on the move to a different law firm. By the way, while I have your attention, can I get you for 15 minutes to pitch you on your expert work?“ They always read the congrats because that’s how humanity is. We’re the same. I’m the same way. Once I get attention to the first paragraph, the second paragraph gives them a couple of sentences about why it’s worth their time to spend 15 minutes with them talking about Veritas Financial Analytics.

Noah Bolmer: That’s interesting. These kinds of guerrilla marketing tactics after fashion. Speaking of that sort of thing, you’ve been doing this for a while, has expert witnessing changed in any fundamental way since you first began, be it technology, technique, or maybe going to settlements?

J.W. Verret: I think with the technology available, data technology, the ability to just use Dropbox, Box, Stata, Excel, and now AI-enhanced versions of everything, the big firm advantage is eroding, and boutique operators like me can go toe to toe with the big guys for more than we could before. I think that’s the general trend going in that direction. The big guys are going to learn how to harness that technology, but I think the model of expert and then under the legion of analysts that support them. that’s going to die in the same way that the big law model is going to die. They’ll always be superstars, but those superstars are going to be aided more and more by tech instead of by people. That means that at least boutiques like me can compete with the big guys.

Noah Bolmer: You mentioned that AI is a playing field leveler. Does it introduce this kind of noise into the system? Where do you stand on AI generally as it pertains to expert witnessing or even to being an attorney?

J.W. Verret: It’s a useful supplement. It’s an essential supplement. I teach an AI-based legal writing class.

Noah Bolmer: Oh.

J.W. Verret: You have to go into it with a philosophy that it is not there to replace anything that you’ve done before. You need to do your own writing first but you don’t limit your own creativity, and then this tool can enhance what you do. It’s a tool, not a replacement. If you’re using it to enhance the efficiency or the reach of what you’re already doing, that’s the right way to approach it. If you’re trying to be lazy and use it to replace your own original thinking or work, you will fail because at least for now, it’s very obvious when you do something with the lazy use of an AI tool, it’s very obvious. Whereas, if you give it 10,000 words of your own writing and say, “streamline this into 8,000 words” that’s great, but that’s your thinking. It’s just assisted by AI. Use it in research, use it to organize your own notes, and use it to edit your writing. Do the bulk of it yourself and feed it a lot. Feeding it more words than it is spitting out. If you want something to be 5,000 words, you need to do 10,000 words. That’s when it’s best. That’s how I use it.

Noah Bolmer: I wrote a recent article comparing different AI software as it pertains to being an expert witness. For instance, helping you with the report with fairly mixed results, and one of the conclusions I came to is that when you do as you say and it works properly, it is important to double-check it and reread everything at the end. Don’t trust the output until you’ve read it.

J.W. Verret: Every word needs to be yours, and in preparing for the cross-examination, you just- I’m getting ahead to one of the questions I think you want to ask me, but it’s-

Noah Bolmer: Let’s talk about cross-examination. 

J.W. Verret: I don’t war game with other people because all of that’s discoverable, so I don’t want to do that. What I do is meditate on every single sentence of the expert report. Just be aware, sit, and don’t just read it. Let me give some meditation on this sentence alone. Why did I say this sentence? What would I say? Do that to the next sentence and then the next sentence. Is what you’ve written is like the Bible. You have to be able to quote your own scripture and every single phrase needs to stand on its own.

Noah Bolmer: Are you ever given a skeletal outline for a report from an attorney, or do you usually write everything whole cloth?

J.W. Verret: I write everything. I would never take an attorney’s language and use it. An attorney’s feedback in formatting is great because I start with creativity and coverage of the necessary issues. That’s the first draft, and I want to take a look at it. I say, “My formatting is garbage. My sights are garbage right now. That’s great. If you want to help with that, you want an associate who can help with that editing and formatting, that’s fine. I’ve done the original thinking. Make sure the thinking is right.” Then, I might get an RA to help me a bit with the formatting or an AI tool to help me with the formatting. If an attorney came to me and said, “Use this language in your report.” I would say, “No, because when somebody asks me on the stand, ‘Were you told to use this language?’ Then, I have to say, ‘Yes’ and look like an idiot. There’s no way that’s happening.” That is not happening.

Noah Bolmer: You mentioned formatting a couple of times. How important is the presentation of information you know for an expert report?

J.W. Verret: That’s the final thing. The presentation is important. It’s like, you cook the meat, and you make sure the meat is cooked well. You make sure the sides are cooked well and the last step is to put the little squiggly lines on the plate, like the chefs do. I’m not saying skip that step. I’m just saying that’s the last step in the process.

Noah Bolmer: To me, it seems like it’s akin to demeanor in court. The content of what you say is important, but so is the way that you present yourself. I wanted to ask you, with technology increasing and people using a lot of things like Zoom and remote technology to go into court. I’ve seen entire trials take place on Zoom. Is there a difference in the way that you prepare or present yourself, or is your demeanor on camera different than it is in the courtroom?

J.W. Verret: It feels different. I recently did a deposition against the SEC, and I did part of the deposition in person. You get into a room and maybe your own counsel is there. Maybe not. Maybe they’re there by Zoom. The counsel who hired me was there by Zoom. The SEC and CFTC lawyers, a joint case, were all sitting there around the room. They’re looking at me like I just got called to the principal’s office. It was a small, claustrophobic room. “Would you like some water, professor?” They try to make it so that “You have to ask to go to the bathroom, professor.” You try to play the game of what to say when you have to go to the bathroom. “I’m just going to go, thanks, Counsel.” I’m in charge. It’s the little games. The other half of the deposition was at home. I’m in my basement with my dog. I’m safe. It feels different. I’ve done half a dozen depositions, and I don’t get nervous anymore. Especially after that criminal cross-examination. It’s becoming old hat, but it’s still just much more relaxation. If you’re opposing counsel, and you want to depose that witness in person, you can. It was a much better feeling to be at home with my dog sitting with me and feeling relaxed. Have fun with it.

Noah Bolmer: Have you ever been in a situation where you’ve been in a remote jury trial?

J.W. Verret: No, not yet. 

Noah Bolmer: Speaking of juries, how do you go about connecting with them during your testimony?

J.W. Verret: Eye contact.

Noah Bolmer: Do you ever use demonstratives? Exhibits, charts, models, things like that.

J.W. Verret: Yes. Most of the prep time with the lawyers was “Let’s see how much we can cut.” I started with the fat PowerPoints, and the lawyers were like, “Oh my God.” and I was like, “I just want to make sure I didn’t lose anything important.” They say, “Fine.” They took a slice, slice, slice, slice, cut out everything you can from that thing. There were ten words on each PowerPoint, and we had maybe fifteen PowerPoints at most. That’s it. That’s all you get. A couple of graphs or charts. They’re self-explanatory and punchy. Keep it simple and lean. If you want to talk, you can talk, but you don’t want them to spend a lot of time looking at it while you’re talking.

Noah Bolmer: Do you find that a picture is worth a thousand words? Are demonstratives more effective than just talking to the jury?

J.W. Verret: Only if you have a couple of them.

Noah Bolmer: You don’t want to burden them with a long slideshow?

J.W. Verret: Absolutely.

Noah Bolmer: I wanted to ask if you’ve had maybe a case or two that has either reinforced or changed the way that you go about being an expert witness. Touchstone cases in your career as an expert witness.

J.W. Verret: I’ve learned from other experts. One practice that is useful is having your expert there while the opposing expert is being deposed. I’ve done that a few times, and it’s very helpful because I can give you a lot of- you think you’re the expert cross-examiner, but I can give you stuff that you don’t know to ask about in real time. That’s helpful, and I had an opportunity to learn from some good experts in matters like that. Of course, I can’t mention them because of confidentiality, but I’ve had an opportunity to watch some good experts and see how they used effective discipline. I think I’m disciplined, but I’ve seen people who are even more disciplined. In response to a reasonable hypothetical will say, “I don’t engage in hypotheticals.” They will say that two hundred times in a row, which is hard to do when you’re sitting in a chair, but I’ve seen that discipline. You’re there to speak to the report and not engage in hypotheticals that don’t involve the facts of the report. That opportunity has been good, and there’s general advice. It is self-serving, but it is also true that it’s very useful for lawyers to have them as a consulting expert early. You have to be careful about using me as a consulting expert when I become a testifying expert later. I can give you useful advice about discovery. I’m not going to [spend] a bunch of hours on it, but I can give you some advice about what to ask for in discovery that you will have wished later that you asked for when we get to subsequent motion to dismiss, and we get to expert testimony.

Noah Bolmer: One thing I want to ask before we wrap up: you mentioned running out of retainer and that’s interesting to me. I like hearing about the different methodologies that experts use in terms of billing. I take it that you use some sort of a retainer mechanism. How do you set up your billing?

J.W. Verret: If I know you, and I’ve worked with you before, and your client is reputable and is a big public company, or you’re with big law, and I have worked with you before, I’m willing to be flexible. If I don’t know you, then I need an Evergreen retainer, which means an upfront retainer I’ve built from the retainer. When the retainer gets to zero, it gets filled up again. If there’s an outstanding invoice that’s beyond the last retainer, it needs to be paid before anything happens. I’m not going to sit in my chair, and I’m not going to write your report until you pay the outstanding invoices and replenish the Evergreen retainer. That protects you and protects me. It limits compromising my independence through billing issues, and if you’re not able to do that, then we have to part ways.

Noah Bolmer: What do you find meaningful about being an expert witness? 

J.W. Verret: It gives me a chance to do something real. One of the frustrations with being an academic is sometimes it doesn’t feel like what you’re doing is real. It’s just mind games with jargon in a journal article. It’s not always like that, but sometimes it feels like that. It gives me a chance to make my academic research meaningful, significant, impactful, and more well-informed than someone who only has the experience of reading a few articles. I do that, and I sit in a chair in real disputes, so I understand how theory meets practice. For me, it’s honing the ability to move in and out of both worlds. It’s taken a lot of time and has been very hard. It’s a challenge to do both at the same time, but I’m better off for that challenge. I’m a better practitioner, a better expert, and a better teacher and scholar for wearing all those different hats and trying to survive with all those different hats. Now that I’m coming into mid-career and midlife, I feel a strength in each of the things I do because of my abilities in the others.

Noah Bolmer: Excellent. Professor Verret, thank you for joining me on Engaging Experts.

J.W. Verret: Thanks for having me and thanks for working with me. I love you guys. I love Round Table. You provide essential expertise to lawyers who are panicked and looking for an expert. You guys can steer them to me, and they’ll be set.

Noah Bolmer: Absolutely. And as always, thank you to our listeners for joining me for another episode of Engaging Experts. Cheers.

Professor J.W. Verret, JD, CPA/CFF, CFE, CVA, CCFI

Professor J.W. Verret teaches Corporate Securities Law and Financial Accounting at George Mason Law School. Additionally, he is a published author, practicing attorney, and sought-after expert witness specializing in securities and corporate litigation, forensic accounting, and fraud examination. Professor Verret holds a J.D. and master’s degree from Harvard.