Where Expert Problems Really Begin
When expert issues surface late in a case, they often feel sudden. In reality, they’ re usually the result of early misalignment.
“ One of the most common problems we see is a lack of clarity around an expert’ s scope,” Guo explained.“ If the scope is overly broad, you run the risk of the expert being challenged for opining outside their specialty.”
That lack of clarity isn’ t just about the expert, it’ s about communication. Attorneys may assume the expert understands the boundaries of their role. Experts may assume they’ re expected to comment broadly. Neither assumption holds up under scrutiny.
“ Making sure the expert knows exactly what they’ re opining on— and that the attorney clearly communicates the case theory— is critical,” Guo said.
When that doesn’ t happen, the risk compounds.
Warning Signs An Expert May Become A Liability
Some red flags are visible early, if attorneys know where to look.
“ One big indicator is prior Daubert challenges,” Guo noted.“ If an expert has been partially excluded multiple times, it can suggest they tend to go outside their lane.”
That pattern often shows up again in reports that cover far more ground than expected, or in testimony where the expert rambles into areas they were never meant to address.
Grubbs-Donovan sees another recurring issue: an expert’ s prior public record.
“ The biggest pitfall is when an expert has previously published or testified to something that contradicts the current case theory,” she said.“ Once that’ s out there, opposing counsel will find it.”
These contradictions don’ t have to be dramatic to be damaging. Subtle inconsistencies, especially across similar cases, can erode credibility quickly.
Vetting As Risk Management, Not A Checkbox
Many expert problems can be traced back to vetting that was technically done, but not deeply enough.
Attorneys often ask broad questions: Do you have experience with this procedure?
What they don’ t always ask is whether the expert’ s experience aligns with the specific facts, timeframe, and materials at issue. Celia Guo described how this plays out:“ An expert might say,‘ Yes, I perform surgery,’ and that sounds fine at first. But later the case narrows— this specific surgery, this specific material, during this specific period— and suddenly the fit isn’ t as clean.”
Thorough research often uncovers issues that wouldn’ t otherwise surface until much later: prior testimony on similar facts, publications that conflict with the case theory, or scheduling conflicts that make meeting deadlines unrealistic. Deadlines, in particular, are frequently underestimated.“ Talking through timelines during selection is a big piece,” Guo
The Trial Lawyer 43