Interviewing Experts: A Surprise-Filled Journey

By Noah Bolmer 

I’m Noah Bolmer, host of Discussions at the Round Table. For over a year, I’ve been interviewing expert witnesses to gain a more nuanced picture of the profession. While I hold a JD, I am not a practicing attorney, nor have I ever acted as or engaged an expert witness in my career. In law school, my exposure to expert witnessing was brief, and primarily through the lenses of admissibility and ethics. While some of my preconceptions hit the mark, more often, expert witnesses have surprised and inspired me throughout the run of the show. 

Circuitous Routes 

You never know where you are going to end up. You never know where your career is going to lead you. Some doors will open that you may want to step through. – Robert Romano 

A common interviewing strategy is to leverage your own experience to relate to guests, and I have found that the varied pathways to expertise are one such area. My own background is a spiderweb of interconnected nodes; I have a JD, a decade of restaurant and brewing experience, and a career as a voiceover artist. During my first couple of months interviewing expert witnesses, it became clear that my own story is not an uncommon blueprint.  

Sports Management expert Robert Romano’s story was as unexpected as it was relatable: 

My career is kind of weird. I went to undergraduate school at Springfield College and got my JD at Loyola University in New Orleans. Then I did what every good law school graduate does, I did not practice law. I was a comedy writer and did comedy for a few years. I did stand-up improv. [. . .] I wrote comedy, wrote scripts, and that kind of stuff. I circled back at one of my reunions with the guy I played football with at Springfield. He was like, “You are in the entertainment world. I am in the sports world. Let’s combine forces and see what we can do.” That is when I started working on the agent side. I became a certified National Football League (NFL) Representative. It was during that time frame I said, “Well, you know what? To better serve my clients, I should go back and educate myself a little more.” I went back to Columbia and got my master’s degree at that time. I did that for years. I wanted to give my clients more value. I thought that would be interesting. I would educate myself, then I could educate my clients, and then the teaching came into it. That is where I went back again and got my LLM in International Law. I felt that would be added value, because in academia, the JD is a terminus. But sometimes Ph.D.’s—I am not going to say they look down on it—but they look down on it. So, I figured, I have this opportunity to get my LLM and it is something I am passionate about. I might as well get it done and I spent about a year doing that. 

Certainly, there is a traditional route to expert witnessing leading from academia, with many interviewees having an advanced degree in their area of expertise. This, coupled with a combination of progressively more senior work experience and publications in their field, is a successful model for many experts. What I did not expect, however, were the established, sought-after experts without advanced degrees, or with degrees in an unrelated field. This might be a case of changing or evolving personal interests, or just happenstance. Some fields do not offer specific relevant degrees or only recently have started to; I recall an interview with forensic expert George Reis who noted: 

In my field of forensic video analysis, photographic analysis, and photography there are no degrees—I am going to back up from that for just a moment—there is now a master’s program [. . .] that deals with the Forensic Multimedia Examination. That is an outstanding program that is available, but that is the only degree program in my specific field. We do have certifications within my field and having the certification is beneficial but not required. When I go to court, with other experts opposing, it is common for people not to have degrees or certifications. 

There has been an interesting contrast between experts who believe that a reliance (or over-reliance) on academia is detrimental, and those who find academic credentials essential. In an interview with crisis-management expert Jonathan Bernstein, I was fascinated when he stated, “I would say beware of academic-only credentials unless you are talking [specifically] about academia. We have come up against this. [. . .] They teach it, but they have never practiced it. I think their cases can be picked apart so quickly that attorneys take a risk hiring. Yet those are the highest-paid expert witnesses.” In contrast, some interviewees, like securities expert Dr. Elliot Fishman implore experts to get advanced degrees and certifications: 

[Newer experts] have to get their credentials. If they do not have a Ph.D. and other letters after their name, there are enough professional certifications—whether a CFA or any CPA designation. [. . .] I would recommend a younger expert [to get] one of the letters after their names. I say that demonstrates substantive expertise. I will tell you MBA and CPA are light credentials—I do not [mean] to be offensive to anybody who is listening to that and is a practicing expert with an MBA—In a deposition, you got torn apart. The MBA Finance curriculum is not deep enough to answer many of these questions of complex securities cases. You need a Ph.D. background, or many years on Wall Street to know the securities trade and how they should be evaluated. 

Of course, this may reveal a field-based dependence. For instance, a wills and trusts expert will almost invariably hold a JD, and a surgery expert will have an advanced medical degree, whereas skilled trades experts may rely upon certifications, or simply a depth of experience. I have interviewed successful guests with every permutation and combination academia, experience, and trade credentials; there are a multitude of paths into expertise itself, and expert witnessing as a career. I had mistakenly expected a fairly uniform route—in reality, the journeys are as diverse as the experts themselves.  

I Don’t Know 

While lawyers have a duty to represent their client, experts have a duty to the neutral, unencumbered truth. Prior to the show, I would have assumed that there was an inherently adversarial relationship between those duties, so much so that the topic was among my typical interview questions early on. While there have been occasional stories of attorneys who attempt to pressure experts, it is a rarer phenomenon than I had imagined. Most attorneys respect the expert’s job and understand that asking them to compromise the truth is counterproductive. This includes assenting to—even encouraging—experts to freely admit not knowing an answer. 

In service of that truthfulness, “I don’t know” is a powerful phrase in court, in depositions, and in general. Almost a mantra, experts have repeatedly expressed the importance of knowing—but also admitting—that you don’t know everything. This begins during the initial phone call. IP expert Stephen Pope, in his final thoughts during our interview summed it up: “The question is, can you convince them that you asked the right questions and are a team player. The kind of person [who] isn’t afraid to say, ‘I don’t know.’ or ‘That’s out of my area of expertise.’” This has been confirmed by numerous other experts, but was best put by Dr. Fishman: 

If I don’t know the answer, I will say “I don’t know.” That is perfectly acceptable in a deposition or courtroom. It engenders the authenticity of this testimony, and that’s ultimately what the judge and jury are looking for. That’s also what unsettles the other side. When the expert is not trying to know everything or pretends to know everything—I mean, gosh, 20% of the time in a deposition, I will concede the other side is right in every case. Perfect. Sure. Why not? An expert is not advocating his client’s position. This is important for new experts—and maybe new attorneys—to understand. We have an ethical obligation and the rules of Civil Procedure. We have a professional obligation to be objective and put an engagement letter in my retainer letter so I may obtain findings that are helpful to your client, neutral to your client, and, or even, hurtful to your client. The expert is objective, and his ultimate responsibility is to the court, not to their client. 

In other words, “I don’t know” is not only a valuable tool, but also legally and morally essential. In retrospect this might seem obvious, but it has been among the most consistent refrains in interviews. Admitting not knowing is a cornerstone of successful engagements. 

Leaving it on the Court 

Daubert-style challenges, cross-examinations, and rebuttal reports all serve to impeach the opinions, conclusions, and even expertise of expert witnesses, so I was intrigued by experts frequently reporting working for previous opposing counsel. At some point, experts come to terms with the fact that attorneys are required to zealously represent their clients, and that can mean dismantling experts on the opposite side. It is not personal. In fact, in meeting these challenges head on, opposing counsel might find a solid expert witness to retain in the future. Computer science expert Dr. Chuck Easttom really drove this point home, recounting: 

[W]hat I eventually realized is this is not personal. Your host is not attacking you as a human being. They’re trying to win a case, and that became very clear to me years ago when an attorney who had really gone after me on the stand at trial a month later called me to hire me. Once you realize it’s not personal and they’re just doing their job, at least for me, at that point it becomes very easy to maintain my composure. 

In an interview with water resources expert Dr. David Williams, I learned that this can even happen before leaving the courtroom: “They awarded the case to my side and gave us four times the punitive damages. Wow, four times! It was almost unheard of and as I was walking out the door, the other side’s attorney asked for my business card and said, ‘Maybe we may call upon you on another case.’” 

Learning that opposing counsel can use court actions as a proving ground for future expert hires was a bit of a revelation. In a way, all expert witness work is a constant job interview—a showcase not only of skill, but composure—for both the engaging and opposing counsel.  

This blog barely scratches the surface, and it has been a humbling learning experience to say the least. Each conversation reveals something new, challenges a preconception, or reinforces a practice. I have been extremely fortunate to enjoy speaking with leaders in wide and varied fields and look forward to providing our readers and listeners with fresh insights. Stay tuned.  

If you are interested in being considered as an expert witness, consider signing up with Round Table Group. For nearly 30 years, we have helped litigators locate, evaluate, and employ the best and most qualified expert witnesses. Contact us at 202-908-4500 for more information or sign up now!