What does it take to become a trusted expert witness in today’s complex legal landscape? In this episode of Chapter Two: Creating New Beginnings, host Dan Martinus sits down with Cristian Zarcu, Eleven Canterbury consultant, former Wall Street managing director, and expert in analytic trading and risk management, for a candid look into the real-world demands of expert testimony.
With advanced degrees in blockchain from MIT and AI in Helsinki, Cristian shares how his global finance background prepared him for high-stakes litigation work. He unpacks the challenges of translating complex technical concepts for juries, staying composed under pressure from opposing counsel, and why credibility, clarity, and objectivity are non-negotiable in the courtroom.
Whether you’re a highly experienced professional exploring new opportunities or just curious about the expert witness role, this conversation is packed with practical insights on building trust, communicating effectively, and making a meaningful impact in legal settings.
Video Transcription
Chapter Two: Creating New Beginnings
From the Witness Stand: How Expert Witnesses Handle Complex Cases with Confidence
With Cristian Zarcu, Eleven Canterbury Consultant, and Dan Martin, Eleven Canterbury Program and Relationship Manager
Introduction
Dan Martin: My guest today is Cristian Zarcu, who has had a long career on Wall Street as managing director and head of analytics at several major Wall Street banks. He’s now got his own firm where he is doing analytic trading and risk management.
He also has a long background in education. He studied blockchain at MIT, and Artificial Intelligence in Helsinki. He’s on the board of Advisors at the University of Idaho School of Business and Economics. We’re going to talk today about being an expert witness.
So, Cristian, it’s an interesting kind of career interlude or something you do in addition to what you’re doing as an expert witness. It seems to me that being an expert witness, part of the job is thinking of ways to explain things, sometimes complex things, to people who may be bright but not knowledgeable about the subject. But you do it in a strange format. It’s not like a classroom where you’re in control, except for the odd disruptive student. You’re answering questions from someone else to get the point across, and in a school environment, you don’t have someone on the other side trying to dispel what you’re saying. How do you like doing that? How do you get through that, and do you think that your experience in industry rather than just in academics is helpful when you’re doing this?
Cristian Zarcu: Well, thank you, Dan. It is definitely an interesting problem to solve. You find yourself in a position to educate folks like a jury, much like you’re saying. You’re not the guy controlling the discussion. But I enjoy, very much, my experience in the financial world, specifically in trading, analytics, and systems, which gives me a very broad background when it comes to financial services-related cases. And, I can give a macro, sort of 30,000 view of what’s happening in a specific case to a jury or a judge, and hopefully make them understand. I’ve been pretty successful at it. I’ve had some very interesting cases where I have had to explain some very complex notions related to algorithmic trading.
And just the notion of algorithmic trading or systematic trading scares people to begin with. So, you have to find a way to communicate the basics of the conversation, the basics of the case, if you will, without confusing everybody and using layman’s terms. And it’s always a very interesting challenge. It gives me the ability to put myself in a juror’s place and find a way to communicate to them what is really happening in the case. And again, I have managed to be pretty successful so far, and hope to continue to do so.
Dan Martin: How about dealing with the other side when they’re trying to undermine what you’re saying? Does it require any special care or special skills?
Cristian Zarcu: Well, I find that the other side is always trying to undermine or trip you, if you will. And having worked with counsel and lawyers for the past five or six years, I’ve learned that they’re only doing their jobs, right? So, everybody focuses on their side of the case, things that portray the case in the light that they want to portray it in.
But it is my job as an expert witness to stick to the facts in the case, to always stick to the truth. One of the important parts of being an expert witness is paying attention to the questions being asked. Lawyers are very smart people, and they will ask the same question in a million different ways, trying to trip you as an expert witness. If you are not aware of the slight changes in the question, sometimes they introduce different words, sometimes they take them away, which can completely change the meaning of the question, and therefore, the meaning of your answer. So, I think it’s a bit of an art. It’s a bit like playing chess with someone. You have to be very careful with your answers and anticipate the next move, but again, all within staying strong in your beliefs in the case. And I think it’s easy when you choose cases carefully that you believe in strongly, and you are not in misalignment with what the thesis of the case is on your own side.
So, it does require some care and deliberation in giving answers. Expertise in your industry and a strong belief in the case that you’re taking on help a lot with that.
Dan Martin: If someone came to you and asked you to be an expert witness on a side that you didn’t agree with, you would be reluctant to do that, or you wouldn’t do that?
Cristian Zarcu: I have turned cases away where I felt that I could not agree with the thesis of the counsel that was looking to retain me. So that has happened. Of course, sometimes you discover things that you may have a different opinion on versus the counsel that you’re working with. And I’ve been fortunate enough to work with counsels who have always advised me to be truthful and state what I believe, and that’s what I always default to. Does that make it a little more difficult? At times it can, but I think in order to stay relevant and believable as an expert witness, you always have to stick to the truth and what you really believe fundamentally is happening in a case.
Dan Martin: I think it improves your credibility.
Cristian Zarcu: It does, Dan, and sometimes that’s a hard thing to do because it may not fully align with the perspective that your counsel might be taking, but I think one has to stay true to their beliefs and experience and state the case as they see it.
Dan Martin: Well, that’s why you’re hired for your expertise. If you switch that, you’ve lost your credibility, and you can’t do that.
Cristian Zarcu: Yes, exactly. So, you have to always remember that you are the expert witness and you’re supposed to be uninvolved in the case and unemotional, which is what I always try to do. I just try to review the facts and analyze the data that’s been given to me, and offer an opinion based strictly on the information that I see. And no subjective opinion.
Dan Martin: Do you help the lawyers come up with the questions to ask you so that the message gets across? Or do they do it themselves?
Cristian Zarcu: In my experience, what has happened is we have these extended conversations where they ask me a variety of questions to see what my answers are, and then they ultimately decide what those questions will be that they might use in depositions or at trials or what have you. But I offer my perspective as much as I can in terms of what I think of the facts in the case as they relate to my assignment. I explain to them what the data might mean. I’m analyzing a trading activity in an algorithm; I give them all the facts as I see them. And from there, the conversation just kind of evolves. As the lawyers understand more and more of what I’m talking about, they have a better way of judging what the questions should be for the case.
Dan Martin: Is there anything that you find that you don’t like about being an expert witness?
Cristian Zarcu: You know, I have enjoyed my experience very much. I really like the cases that I’ve been involved with. They’ve covered the gamut in terms of financial services, from regulatory compliance to systems to deep down analyzing trading data. I enjoy all that.
The one thing I enjoy less is the perceived notion that even though I always try for objectivity, and I suspect most expert witnesses do, there’s always this perception that you might just be another hired gun. And certainly, the other side is always trying to make the case that you’re just a hired gun, you’re just here for the money, and you’re just stating what needs to be stated. That’s the one thing that bothers me about it, because the way I approach it is truly, I’m interested in presenting the facts as I see them, analyzing the data, and just coming up with the results. So, keep the subjectivity away as much as possible. That’s the one downside.
Dan Martin: Do the lawyers ever get under your skin?
Cristian Zarcu: Yes, sometimes they do, and it varies. I mean, I’ve worked with some very professional lawyers on the other side who have kept it very professional. But I’ve had a couple of cases in New York City, surprise, surprise, where the lawyers were much more aggressive, where I had to stand up and kind of be the same a little bit. And it seems like that’s okay sometimes. Most of the time, my counsel advises me to be unemotional and keep my cool. I’ve had one instance where, again, the lawyer was very aggressive, and I had to respond to bring the conversation down to a civil level. It does happen sometimes. I try to keep it at a minimum, though.
Dan Martin: It sounds like you’ve found a niche that you’re very good at and you enjoy doing, and you’ve got the expertise that’s in demand. I’ve enjoyed the conversation.
Cristian Zarcu: Thank you, Dan. I really appreciate it. I enjoyed it as well.
