In this episode…

As expert witnesses, the way in which we are perceived is a matter of how we present ourselves. While some areas of expertise are more casual, others require a buttoned-up, professional demeanor at all times. It is important to interact with our peers, engaging attorneys and fact-finders in a manner that fits both our profession and role as an expert.

Listen to the entire episode as our panelists explore the relationships that expert witnesses will encounter and be sure to listen to their full episodes of each guest:

• Jonathan Klane
• Mike Favetta
• Dr. Elliot Fishman

Episode Transcript: 

Note: Transcript has been lightly edited for clarity 

Host: Noah Bolmer, Round Table Group 

Guests:  

Jonathan Klane, Senior Manager, Safety Business Development Team, Dräger 

Mike Favetta, Meteorologist, Owner of WeatherPrep, LLC 

Dr. Elliot Fishman, Founder, and CEO, Astrina, Inc. 

Noah Bolmer: Welcome to Engaging Experts. I’m your host, Noah Bolmer, and I’m excited to welcome three distinguished panelists to the show. All returning guests. The first is Jonathan Klane, Senior Manager on the Safety Business Development Team at Dräger, a medical and safety technology firm. He is an experienced expert witness and a PhD candidate in Human and Social Dimensions of Science and Technology at Arizona State University. Mr. Klane, thank you for joining us. 

Jonathan Klane: Thank you, Noah. 

Noah Bolmer: Also joining us is Mike Favetta, a meteorologist and the owner of WeatherPrep. LLC, a meteorology consulting firm. In addition to meteorology, his expertise spans climatology and the environment. Mr. Favetta has over thirteen years of expert witness experience and holds a degree in Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology from Kean University. Mr. Favetta, thank you for joining us. 

Mike Favetta: Hey Noah, great to be back. 

Noah Bolmer: Finally, we’re joined by Dr. Elliot Fishman, the founder and CEO of Astrina, Inc., a litigation support firm specializing in securities valuation. He is a sought-after expert, a PhD economist, and a published author. He holds multiple advanced degrees, including an MBA from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and a PhD from the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Fishman, thank you for joining us today. 

Dr. Elliot Fishman: Nice to see you again, Noah. 

Noah Bolmer: Today’s panel is on the topic of relationships. Every engagement is dependent not only upon the expertise and experience of the expert witnesses but also on a web of interactions between members of the trial team and the expert. At the core is a relationship between the expert and the attorney. Mr. Klane, how do you get off on the right foot with attorneys? How do you get started? 

Jonathan Klane: It’s a great question. How do you get started? Often, it’s an email. You respond to the email with a bit of enthusiasm for the case or something that makes a link. I live in Arizona, but most of my clients are back in Maine, where I’m from, so mentioning that is sometimes good. The first meeting is where you can bond, trying to make some sort of connection, and smile and indicate that you think it’s an interesting case and that you can help based on what you’ve learned so far, and you’re very interested in hearing much more about it. 

Noah Bolmer: Dr. Fishman, same question 

Dr. Elliot Fishman: My approach is- well, to treat each engagement at the highest levels of professionalism and that is to consult with a lot of information and data right up front, and not necessarily to start the clock right away. I give away some free hours, some research, and some consultation, two or three hours up front. I will read the complaint, take a look at the background, look at the motions, and maybe take a glance at the case law if I don’t know the subject matter firsthand. Give the attorney an interesting perspective that [they] may not have thought of as they’re sizing up the case. Really demonstrate your value added from the start. 

Noah Bolmer: Mr. Favetta.  

Mike Favetta: Mr. Klane and Dr. Fishman bring up some good points about developing that rapport. Understanding that there might be some aspects of the case that we may not know of for intentional reasons. Maybe the hiring party, whether it’s the attorney or the paralegal who reaches out, doesn’t want to be upfront and give all the information from A to Z. Do the conflict check off the bat. I’ve found in my decade-plus of doing this that there are different attitudes around. There are some hiring parties, being the attorney or the firm, that are very straight shooters that want to go at this in an analytical way and keep the meetings professional. There are others that have a light-hearted atmosphere to it. I’m based in the New York area, and there are guys who I work with on Staten Island who are very – you know, take Zooms from their home offices with the top button undone on their shirts. They’re very casual, and we have a conversation. There are others that have a formal meeting room with glass walls and a big conference table, making sure it looks professional. So, I would say there’s more of a what’s the feeling going into it and starting the conversation on that note. Are we taking the more straight and narrow professional route, or is this more of an introduction in an informal sense? Based on that, there’s more of a relationship developing right off the bat.  

Noah Bolmer: Do you have a preference? Do you prefer it when it’s more loose and casual?  

Mike Favetta: I love it. There was one call, it was a cold call from an expert witness search firm, one of those directories. The attorney was [a] prominent local [with] advertising- you’d see his face on the side of buses, [on] benches at bus stops, and he advertised on local TV. He was [a] prominent Italian American who was active in the community. [He] saw my last name also of that heritage. And we kind of kicked it off and we [got started] on that note. After a while, [he said,] “I have this poor little old lady, [who] slipped and fell. We need to know the weather.” After ten minutes of talking, we developed [a] rapport, which [led him to say to his] assistant, “Cancel my other appointments for the rest of the day. I want Mike. We’re going to go forward with the retainer and work with him on this case.” It depends on how those initial first few moments go. That was one of my favorite experiences if you will. There have been others that were a complete one-eighty. They take less than five minutes, and they don’t get much from you, so bye, but otherwise, they’ve been better rather than worse. 

Noah Bolmer: Dr. Fishman, does that comport with your experience? Have you had a variety of casual and professional encounters when starting a new engagement? 

Dr. Elliot Fishman: To be honest, I have not. I’m in the finance field and do a lot of work for Wall Street law firms. 

Noah Bolmer: I assume it tends to be more on the professional side.  

Dr. Elliot Fishman: Half the time, you don’t know if you’re being interviewed or if you’re being put on the stand yourself. It’s just holding your own and the highest levels of professionalism. Keep it buttoned up in my field and experience. 

Noah Bolmer: Absolutely, let’s talk about red flags. What are some of the things that happen right off the bat that make you think to yourself, “I’m not sure if I’m going to take this engagement. This is not for me.”  

Dr. Elliot Fishman: Two things. One, when I’m not convinced there is a case there or I am unsure whether it’s plaintiff or defendant, whether I’m on the winning side, we don’t know who’s on the winning side until it grinds through litigation. You can get a sense early on if you’re being asked to defend something that is substantially indefensible. I shy away from those situations because it puts everyone in an awkward situation. 

Jonathan Klane: That is a good question. I’ve been fortunate to not have experienced any significant red flags. I assume when Dr. Fishman talks about and says the winning side [he is referring to] the moral or ethical side and not trying to predict the outcome of the case.  

Dr. Elliot Fishman: Exactly.  

Jonathan Klane: Often, my cases are workplace or non-workplace injuries, serious exposures leading to life-threatening illness, or, sadly, many fatalities. While not always, I’m working for plaintiff attorneys who are suing. They’re always interesting. There’s always a case there; it may not be the best case. I think for a red flag it would be if the potential client attorney were to indicate in a way that was very clear some type of disregard for the safety and health of other people. Not necessarily a disregard for regulations, but a disregard for the safety and health of other people. I think it somewhat lines up with what Dr. Fishman was talking about. We’re talking about moral and ethical imperatives. I’ll end [by] saying that I’ve been fortunate, and that has not been the case with my clients. I cannot say the same about opposing counsel.  

Noah Bolmer: Mr. Favetta, have you had any major red flags that prevented you from taking on an engagement?  

Mike Favetta: Noah, I would say the biggest red flag is when the hiring party comes out of the gate and uses the “B” word. They start talking about the budget. “We don’t have a lot of money to pay you.” Or “We weren’t intending to go down this route with cost.” I think to myself, “Why are we wasting each other’s time?” If it’s something as simple as looking at some forensic data and producing a quick report that you need to submit to the judge because you were admonished for not giving an expert report with your motion, fine. But when it comes to “I need all of this data, and I’m stuck. Help me with my case, but we can’t afford to [pay] a big chunk of change for your fee.” That’s when it’s a big red flag of I don’t think this is going to work out. 

Noah Bolmer: Along those lines, and this is for all our panelists, have any of you had a situation where you have taken an engagement that didn’t go well? There weren’t any red flags at the start, but it didn’t end up going well, and you would not take a future engagement from that same attorney. How do you deal with getting a call from an attorney who wants to use you, but you’re sure that you don’t want them? How do you say no? 

Jonathan Klane: I haven’t had to say no. I have dealt with, “I think you are the opposing counsel in a case of mine, or your law firm-” usually it’s the law firm and not specifically the person, the attorney. T be honest, that’s not usually an issue. I did have- so, my very first case, I was incredibly inexperienced during my first case. I was naive to the process and did not understand it. Unfortunately, the client’s attorney did absolutely zero preparation with me for a deposition with a very skilled attorney. It went cataclysmically badly for my client, and he wasn’t even there. He gave it to an absolutely junior attorney who literally never said a thing. I think we’re all used to objection, form and function or something along that line. I learned, how we learn primarily through our mistakes. We talk about this a lot in safety. It’s incredible to do so. The additional interesting thing is he ended up being opposing counsel in pretty much my last case. We’re talking bookends to my expert witness career. I mentioned it to my client attorney, whom I knew from many, many cases, and I said, “Here’s what I did, what happened, and here’s what went wrong. Etcetera.” He said, “I appreciate you letting me know. To be honest with you, Jon, I don’t think he’ll even bring it up. We’re talking about decades ago. I’m willing to bet he doesn’t even remember it at this point. If he does, don’t worry about it. It’s likely not even something that he would address.” My client was correct. It never came up. There were other things that did instead, and it’s been a fortunate one. That first case thirty years ago taught me a tremendous amount about what it really should be like. 

Noah Bolmer: It’s interesting that you bring up the team aspect. There are attorneys, but there are also junior attorneys. Sometimes, paralegals get involved, and people who haven’t been expert witnesses or around attorneys don’t realize how large trial teams can be depending on the specific action. What is the intersection of some of those relationships? In other words, when you first get an engagement, who do you typically talk to? Are you always talking to the attorney? Do you sometimes get a paralegal on the phone? Who is it that you are typically working with at the beginning and throughout an engagement? I’ll start with you, Dr. Fishman. 

Dr. Elliot Fishman: Usually, it’s the senior partner on the case who reaches out. Excuse me, the associate reaches out for a screening call, and once we get through that, then I go into a large conference room, where the senior partner is there.  

Mike Favetta: I would say it varies on the size of the firm. If it’s a smaller case, it’s usually the attorney whose name is on all the documents. If it’s a larger firm, then there would be the layers of assistants and paralegals working your way up to basically the person who’s signing all of the motions and working with that attorney directly after a few layers of peeling that onion back. 

Noah Bolmer: Do you ever feel a bit sidelined getting one of the more junior members and having to work up the ranks to get the real answer to your question? Or do you feel that typically, trial teams are well-oiled machines, and the correct person is working with you, the expert? 

Mike Favetta: I would say that in terms of working with the right person in the beginning, there’s always the hesitancy, or almost a delay, if you will, in getting to the right person. It tends to slow things down a bit, but once they realize your value, they realize they should have been working with you all along. The other initial contacts go out the window. You’re exclusively talking with the attorney on their cell phone on weekends, making sure everything is done correctly. 

Noah Bolmer: Once we have cleared ourselves of red flags, got the right person, and are starting our engagement, how do you maintain a positive attorney-expert relationship? What are the factors that make things go smoothly for both the end client and the expert witness? 

Dr. Elliot Fishman: Meeting deadlines. Be very aware of the court-scheduled deadlines. That is the case management order, as well as the attorney’s deadlines because they want to see everything a week or two in advance to review. 

Mike Favetta: I would say meeting deadlines is important, and Dr. Fishman nailed that. But also, when asked to make your own deadline make sure it’s reasonable because sometimes there’s so much information out there, and you get three other calls from three other firms that need reports yesterday. There is a fine balance of keeping your hiring party pleased, but also managing your own time and workload efficiently. 

Noah Bolmer: Mr. Klane.  

Jonathan Klane: Yeah, so I like what Dr. Fishman and Mr. Favetta have discussed about deadlines, so I won’t replicate that. I would say, you know, a lot of my career has been as a consultant, not solely as an expert witness. And so, when you’re a consultant, you’re trying your best to meet your client’s needs whatever they are. This is pretty much the same dynamic. I have a client, and I’m their consultant. I don’t yet know what they need, so I’m trying to figure out what they need. Then, I’m also trying to provide them with information that I have that they may not have. They may have it, but they may not. So that might include- for me, I deal a lot with the regulations of say like, OSHA or EPA, or others. But there could be other aspects, besides regulations, that play significant roles in policies and consensus standards, that I would then bring up.  

The other is I always also provide them with, “Here is what I would testify to or do if I were on the other side.” So, trying to do that “what if?” What do I think someone might come back at me just from my perspective? I’m not trying to put myself in the position of the opposing counsel. I’m trying to put myself in the position of the opposing witness, which, of course, I think we probably all have dealt with. So, trying to meet their needs. 

Also, the last thing I would say is as with I think a lot of interactions, but this is just one. Is trying to make it easy on them. Trying not to make what can be a challenging process more difficult. So, one of my first questions is, “How do you operate when it comes to how you want information exchanged? Do you want phone calls? Do you want emails? What do you want in an email and please tell me what you don’t want in an email? Tell me when you want something in writing? Until then, I’m not putting anything in writing. But give me your specific needs.” Because I’ve found they can vary tremendously even if you’re in the same jurisdiction. That’s an important aspect for any expert witness to keep in mind. 

Noah Bolmer: How proactive do you have to be in making sure that those needs are met? How do you make sure that those lines of communication are open? 

Mike Favetta: Starting with cases that go on for years. A few of my cases began before COVID, and then during COVID, there was a long pause where nothing moved. Now, two, three, or four years after COVID, some of these phone calls are starting again. “Remember me from 2018? Well, this case is finally going to trial six years later.” There are long periods of time when there may or may not be a phone call or an email to touch base. One attorney even started his own law firm. He left the firm that he began the case with and took it to his new firm with some assistants. So, people move things along, but touching base at least once a year is advised, given how some of these cases could go on for what seems like years and years. 

Noah Bolmer: Dr. Fishman, you brought up scheduling and making sure that people are on deadlines. How do you keep track of your own schedule and timing and make sure that you have sufficient time to do everything you need to do? 

Dr. Elliot Fishman: I turn work down. Cases can drag on, just like my colleagues said, for years and then they pop out of the blue. And when- it’s usually a report is due in two or three weeks. And at that point, you just have to clear your schedule, work around the clock six days a week, and get it done. It’s not possible with the level of detail and the level of technical accuracy required to work on more than one project at the same time. Even if I have a couple of my associates on it, I have to be the primary author. I have to be aware of every word, every sentence, every fact and figure, every audit trail, [and] every document referenced in the discovery file. The only way to handle the schedule is to work on one project at a time and accept there will be long, idle periods between projects. But to devote your time and attention to one client when their case is happening.  

Noah Bolmer: Mr. Favetta, what’s your scheduling strategy? 

Mike Favetta: I’ve received calls from frequent flyers. Those attorneys who look to me for a quick update. Something they need right away, and I’ll say, “Yeah, I can get it done for tomorrow, but it’s going to be a little extra. I need to put all other work on hold to make you a priority.” If the work is right, if it’s nothing that requires too much time, or too much detail, or too much investigation, sure, I’m happy to help and make it work, but there will be extra compensation for that rush. 

Noah Bolmer: One of the most difficult things is communicating bad news. Sometimes we put in a lot of work, and the answer is not going to be what the attorney and the end client want to hear. It is our job as expert witnesses to adhere to the neutral truth. Mr. Klane, how do you communicate bad news to an attorney, so that you can still maintain a positive working relationship with them? 

Jonathan Klane: Yeah, I think they very much respect and appreciate getting any news early on so that they can make decisions about direction and investing in a certain strategy or path. And so, I try not to consider to what degree this might be good news or bad news for my client. It’s just, is it relevant? Is it information? Is it something I’ve uncovered in my research or whatever? And then you know- you alert them to it, and have that conversation where you say, “I’m not sure how this affects it because I acknowledge that it’s not my role to figure that out, but, for me, this is a serious ‘whatever’ implication. It may favor things in this direction, or it may not favor things in the other direction.” Alot of the times, there are several ways of looking at that, and what I’ve learned is that I might think it’s not the best news, and then the client will come back and say, “Got it. I appreciate it. We’re not going to go in that direction. We’re going to go in this other direction.” They don’t necessarily see it as bad news, they see it as data that can help them take action in a more strategic way. 

Noah Bolmer: Spinning it into neutral news. 

Jonathan Klane: Yeah, I would say so. Yeah, Noah. It’s not my role to try to figure that out. When I try to figure that out, I’ve found it’s not the most helpful. Now, I’m still fully honest and say, “From my perspective, this is not helpful to the case; however-“ here, I’m always then instantly looking for, “If this is an impact to the case, here are other things, or here is where the strengths lie, or the single biggest strength is in this area.” Again, strictly from my perspective. I don’t know the law. I just know the stuff I do. 

Noah Bolmer: Dr. Fishman, obviously, in the financial sector and securities valuation, I imagine that you have a fair amount of what I would call bad news to communicate. How do you tell a client that things are not going to go their way with regard to some information that you’ve uncovered via writing a report, or being deposed, or what have you. 

Dr. Elliot Fishman: Or doing market research, or checking comps or digging into the data, the results are not as we hoped or anticipated. The answer is there is no good or bad news. There’s only objective news, which has to be put forth in the most straightforward and forthright manner possible, at the earliest possible time so that the attorneys consider it in the broader context of the case to see if it even makes a difference. I’ve been in situations where I wouldn’t say I panicked, but I was concerned that we discovered information during research that would be a setback to the client. But in fact, the attorney either knew about it or wasn’t concerned at all and had a different perspective where it could either be dismissed away in a line of questioning or overcome by some other information on the phone. The point is to put all information in front of attorneys that may affect the case at the earliest possible time and in the most straightforward manner so the attorneys may strategize. It’s not the expert’s job to strategize on the case. 

Noah Bolmer: Mr. Favetta, the same question.  

Mike Favetta: Yeah Noah, I really think that early is key. We all agree on that. And it’s one thing I mention in my pitch during the initial interview stage. I say, “Please don’t wait to loop me in on everything until you’re down the line, and finished with discovery, and then you need your expert report, whether it’s for the plaintiff or the defense. Keep me involved in discovery and share the documents with me because now is the time-” especially when discovery is open, to have all of those sides, tangents, and information available so you’ll know what’s in the opposing expert’s report. You can get ahead of it and prepare more easily. It sure beats coming up with a strategy down the road and having them ultimately spend more money for an expert to find more information and go a little more in-depth when your trial is days away. 

Noah Bolmer: Let’s talk a little about the ending of an engagement or the ending of a case. I know that [many] times, the expert witness is brought in for a specific portion. They do their job and then head on to their next engagement. These cases, as you stated, may take years to wind up. Once your engagement is over, do you check up on the status of the case? Do you have any post-engagement rituals to make sure that everything went smoothly? How did the case wind up or check in with the attorney? What do you do at the end of an engagement?  

Mike Favetta: I typically don’t ask specifics about the case, only because I don’t want to infer that I want to be more involved or that I’m looking for more engagement on that case. But I do try and keep that client relationship there. [I] send either a warm wishes on the holiday card professionally or even as a meteorologist, we had the big solar eclipse last year, and it coincided with the tenth anniversary of my company. So, I thought it would be fun to send out solar eclipse glasses to all the clients I’ve worked with over the last few years. Kind of a fun little gimmicky [way] to say, “Hey, we’re still here if you have more work.” Beyondjust keeping that relationship open with an annual mailing [stating] that we’re available, no, I do not engage in follow-up with each individual case I’ve worked on. 

Jonathan Klane: Similar to what Mr. Favetta just said, I don’t typically reach out beyond “You’ve got your final invoice.” And in that, I reflect that “I’m very happy to have done this for you, etc.” I don’t ask about the outcome. I leave it up to them. If they tell me, I certainly welcome that news. Sometimes, they will put it in writing or sometimes they will do a call. Most of the time, I don’t always hear, and I let it go. I don’t track some sort of wins versus losses or anything like that. I stay available. I stay in touch. I leave a lot of that up to the various clients. Again, expert witness has been something I’ve done plenty of, but it’s never been the majority of my work, even as a consultant. So, it hasn’t been something I’ve felt the need to follow up on. Plus, which, it seems to me that attorneys are committed to not spending an additional minute on a case or unbillable, if they don’t have to. I try not to do anything that might then require a response. But I have had some very nice follow-ups from one attorney, who was my second case, first time in court. I think I told this story in my other podcast with you, Noah, so I won’t repeat it. The short version is that I made the jury laugh, and that was according to the client, it was “the gold”. I didn’t know. I was young and naive about this. They were thrilled they got a favorable decision and judgment and all of that. And so, not only at the end, they complimented me, but she put it into the letter- I still have a copy of that letter, “And you made the jury laugh!” So, sometimes those sorts of things can be really neat to do. 

Noah Bolmer: Dr. Fishman, how do you wind up a case? 

Dr. Elliot Fishman: Ok, so, my colleagues are correct that it’s not appropriate, or it’s not done, to check in with attorneys to find out what happened. Nine times out of ten, these cases settled, and the settlements are sealed and confidential. It’s none of my business, as curious as I am, who got what in the end and how my opinion influenced it. If the attorney wants to share that with me, they will volunteer that. My experience has been, they’re pretty reticent, and their obligation is to the client. I respect that professional boundary. If I’m curious, and I confess I keep an active Pacer account, I’ll go on and check the court filings to see if anything has been put into the record, any post-trial motions, or if it’s going to be appealed. Then I’ll have a sense of what happened in the case and if I may be needed in the future.  

The satisfaction in the case I get is by doing the work itself and getting paid. And you know If you did a good job, if you hear from the attorney six months, a year, or a year and a half down the road, if they have a different matter, then they have you in the back of their mind as someone they want to work with again. I’ve been fortunate that’s been my experience lately. But I don’t expect a call, a letter of congratulations, or any sort of “atta boy” acknowledgment from an attorney or even finding out the results of the case because it’s not part of the profession. 

Noah Bolmer: Results of the case aside, is it, Dr. Fishman, appropriate, in your opinion, for a newer expert witness who is just getting started to ask briefly about their performance? 

Dr. Elliot Fishman: Everyone does it at the start because they want to know that they’re in the game. After years and years of doing it, it’s just something you get over. You’re not looking for a “pat on the back”. You’re looking for the final check to come in and to help them again with another case.  

Noah Bolmer: Understood. Before we wrap up, I’d like to hear any final thoughts on today’s panel topics, connections and relationships. 

Mike Favetta: So, I think Noah, it’s a fine balance between nagging the clients who hired you and being there waiting in the wings for when you are needed. Especially when you want to know and follow the case to see if everything went through. Or just to say, “Hey, I’m here the next time you need me. It was great working with you. My phone is always on, and I’m available to take your call.” 

Jonathan Klane: Yeah, so it’s been a great conversation with everyone, and I’ve enjoyed hearing from the others as well and the back-and-forth we enjoyed and with you, Noah. I think, as we’ve been discussing here somewhat, relationships matter. I have to provide the citation. I- one of many would be- but a great one, is Dale Carnegie. Right? Chapter three of How to Make Friends and Influence People, is you can’t win an argument. Which his use of it was more along the lines of relating to people for sales purposes. Obviously, arguments in our context here is very different. But I would also say it holds true. Expert witness- I had to learn this early, if an expert witness goes in thinking they’re going to win an argument with opposing counsel they’ve probably already lost before they’ve begun. I was cautioned by one of my early clients, an attorney who pushed back against opposing counsel who was clearly trying to do a lot of, “Hey, how are you doing, Jon? Nice to meet you, etcetera, etcetera.” Let’s make this person so comfortable with me that they will engage in a conversation. And I could go down that rabbit trail of ways, but I won’t. What I’ll say instead along the lines of the importance of relationships is with one’s client, relationship absolutely matter. The way to do that is for me is the same as it always is. Besides being an effective expert witness, and that includes as I think we discussed, or I did, try and make it easy on your client. It’s doing some of the relationship-building things. It’s, if they’re open to it, having a bit of a fun banter. It’s maybe getting into a bit of the usual personal sort of stuff. I’ve gotten to know my clien- one client in particular, very, very well and he has gotten to know me. And that has translated into a lot more business for me from him and people he has referred to me. Obviously, a good part of that also is delivering the goods. Right? Doing what I need to do to help educate him, to help him build his case. It’s not my case. I’m not building it. I’m providing a service and information, insights- “Here’s where I think the strengths are and where there are potential weaknesses are from my perspective.” It’s good for him to hear. So how do we do all of those typical things? But really seeing it as, this is another person, and they have a life. On the one hand, I’m trying to provide a high-quality service that helps them accomplish what they wish, which, of course, is to win the case. They may be plaintiff; they may be defense. I’m agnostic about that, but it’s also here’s a person and how do we relate, and how do we do this? 

I was in business for myself for thirteen years. The economy in 2011 finally caught up to us. But during that time period, if you were to ask, “Jon, what’s the one thing that allowed you to sustain a good business for that time period, until the Great Recession beat you up?” It was multifactorial on the downside, but on the upside, it was absolutely relationship building. Relationship marketing. Which I learned from my dad, who was an on-the-road shoe salesman. I saw him in action. The last thing I would say, and this is always a good way to have final thoughts, Noah, would be- you and I talked about it in my original interview on your podcast, was on the powers of storytelling to do so many things including relationship building, including being persuasive,  including embedding your data, including- and you know me, I study this. I practice this. I could go on and on and on, but the research is there. The practice and the human brain are absolutely wired for story. It is not wired for dry, dull data and statistics. 

Noah Bolmer: That concludes our show. I’d like to thank our esteemed panelists, Dr. Fishman, Mr. Klane, and Mr. Favetta for joining me here today. I’d like to thank, as always, our listeners for joining us for another episode of Engaging Experts. Cheers. 

Mr. Jonathan Klane, Mr. Mike Favetta, and Dr. Elliot Fishman

Today’s episode is a panel discussion on expert relationships. Our panelists are Mr. Jonathan Klane, Mr. Mike Favetta, and Dr. Elliot Fishman. Mr. Klane is the Senior Manager on the Safety Business Development Team at Draeger, a medical and safety technology firm. He is an experienced expert witness and a Ph.D. candidate in Human and Social Dimensions of Science and Technology at Arizona State University.  Mr. Favetta is a meteorologist and the owner of WeatherPrep, LLC., a meteorology consulting firm. In addition to meteorology, his expertise spans climatology and the environment. Mr. Favetta has over 13 years of experience as an expert witness. He has a bachelor’s in Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology from Keene University.  Dr. Elliot Fishman is the founder and CEO of Astrina, Inc., an economist, and a sought-after expert witness. Dr. Fishman holds advanced degrees including an MBA from Wharton and a PhD from the University of Pennsylvania.