Beyond Experience: What Attorneys Look for in an Expert Witness
By Seth Cohen
Working as an expert witness is not a career path people generally set out to pursue. Even after decades of building successful careers and becoming recognized subject-matter experts, few professionals know what expert witness work involves or how experts are retained in major litigation.
For most, the opportunity arises unexpectedly. A colleague recommends them to an attorney. A lawyer discovers an article they have written, hears them speak at a conference, finds them quoted in the media, or comes across their LinkedIn profile while searching for someone with their highly specialized subject-matter expertise. Only then do they begin to learn what it means to serve as an expert witness.
Once they understand what expert witness work involves and decide to pursue it, some people assume that decades of leadership experience, professional recognition, and an impressive résumé are what legal teams are looking for. The expectation is that experience, reputation, and professional accomplishments will speak for themselves and lead to being retained as an expert witness. In reality, the retention process is far more nuanced.
Attorneys may begin their search by seeking referrals, working with a trusted expert witness firm, conducting independent research, or drawing on their own professional networks to develop a list of qualified candidates. Once they have assembled that list, the question is no longer who has the most prestigious title or the longest résumé. It is which candidate demonstrates the ability to analyze the facts and data, explain complex issues clearly, and remain credible under challenging questioning.
That distinction surprises many first-time candidates. Some are puzzled when asked to interview, while others assume the interview is simply a formality. They soon discover that the interview is one of the most important steps in the retention process because it provides an opportunity to demonstrate qualities that no résumé can convey.
Understanding how attorneys evaluate expert witnesses provides valuable insight into what distinguishes a qualified candidate from the expert they ultimately choose to retain.
The Strongest Credentials Don’t Always Win the Engagement
One of the biggest misconceptions about expert witness selection is that attorneys are looking for the most accomplished person in a particular field. More often, they are deciding which of several equally qualified candidates is the best fit for the engagement.
By the time legal teams begin interviewing prospective experts, they have identified multiple candidates with the experience, credentials, and industry knowledge needed for the matter. Each may have spent decades in leadership and made the very decisions that are now being examined in litigation.
At that point, the question is no longer whether a candidate is qualified to serve as an expert witness. The focus shifts from credentials to a different set of questions that may include:
- Is the candidate’s independent analysis consistent with the legal team’s theory of the case?
- How well does the candidate explain complex issues without oversimplifying them?
- Does the candidate remain thoughtful, composed, and consistent when presented with challenging questioning?
- Will the candidate work effectively with the legal team throughout the litigation process?
Those are questions a résumé can’t answer. The interview is designed to help attorneys answer them. As candidates are evaluated, the field gradually narrows until one expert emerges as the best fit for the engagement.
The Interview Is Not a Formality
The interview is where attorneys begin assessing qualities that extend beyond a candidate’s credentials. They are not merely confirming an expert’s experience. They are evaluating how that expert thinks, communicates, and responds under pressure.
During the conversation, attorneys pay close attention to behaviors that may seem insignificant to the candidate but provide valuable insight. They observe whether the expert listens carefully before responding. Do they explain complex issues in plain language without sacrificing accuracy? Are their opinions balanced, thoughtful, and supported by experience? Does the expert remain composed when challenged or become defensive when the conversation turns difficult?
Even seemingly routine questions serve a purpose. Questions such as “What are you doing now?” or “What have you been doing since leaving your full-time leadership role?” are not simply opportunities to make conversation. They help attorneys understand whether an expert’s knowledge and experience are current and relevant to the issues in the case, how actively the expert continues to engage with the field, and how clearly that experience can be communicated.
Candidates are sometimes surprised when attorneys revisit the same topic from different angles or ask similar questions more than once. They may assume the attorney missed the answer or is looking for a different one. More often, the attorney is looking for something else entirely: consistency, judgment, and the discipline to answer each question thoughtfully and consistently, regardless of how it is asked.
One piece of advice I share with prospective experts is simple: answer only the question asked. If the answer is followed by silence, don’t try to fill it. That discipline begins in the interview and remains just as important during depositions and testimony.
Many successful subject-matter experts have spent their careers being valued for the depth and completeness of their explanations. Expert witness work requires a different approach. During the interview, candidates should answer each question thoughtfully and completely enough to demonstrate the depth of their knowledge and experience, then resist the temptation to continue speaking after the question has been answered.
Some candidates are reluctant to fully answer questions before they have been retained, concerned they may be giving away their expertise without compensation. The key is to provide enough information to demonstrate the depth of your knowledge and experience without offering opinions or analysis that go beyond the question being asked. Providing enough information to demonstrate your expertise is very different from giving away your expert opinion. Your opinion itself is not the primary value; it’s your willingness to stand behind that opinion, under oath and under cross-examination, that makes it valuable.
Over the years, I have seen highly qualified experts overlooked, not because they lacked the experience or credibility to serve as an expert witness, but because the interview left important questions unanswered. Some assumed their credentials spoke for themselves and offered only brief responses. Others focused so heavily on the depth of their expertise that they missed opportunities to show how clearly they could communicate complex ideas. Occasionally, candidates became impatient with questions they viewed as repetitive or unnecessary, not realizing those questions were designed to evaluate consistency, composure, and how they might perform during a deposition or on the witness stand.
The interview is not intended to diminish an expert’s accomplishments. It is designed to help attorneys understand how the knowledge, judgment, and experience developed over a successful career will translate to the role of an expert witness. By the end of the interview, attorneys should have a clear understanding not only of what the expert knows, but also how they think, communicate, and will work with the legal team. Those are the qualities that ultimately shape the retention decision.
Attorneys Evaluate More Than Expertise
An expert witness engagement is rarely limited to writing a report or appearing at trial. From the moment an expert is retained, they become an integral part of the litigation team.
Over the course of a case, attorneys and experts may spend months working together to review documents, analyze evidence, refine opinions, prepare for depositions, respond to new information, and anticipate opposing arguments. The work is collaborative, thoughtful, and often demanding.
For that reason, attorneys evaluate far more than technical expertise. They are considering what it will be like to work with the expert throughout the case. Among the qualities they evaluate are whether the expert:
- Remains objective when new facts emerge.
- Explains complex issues clearly while remaining grounded in the facts and the expert’s independent analysis.
- Accepts feedback and preparation without becoming defensive.
- Responds professionally when schedules and deadlines change, or unexpected developments arise.
- Remains thoughtful and composed when opinions are challenged.
At this stage, the issue is no longer whether the expert is qualified. It is whether the attorney believes that expert is the right person to have by their side throughout the litigation.
From Subject-Matter Expert to Effective Expert Witness
The qualities that make someone a successful subject-matter expert also provide the foundation for becoming an effective expert witness. Deep experience. Sound judgment. Intellectual curiosity. Professional credibility.
A subject-matter expert develops knowledge, experience, and professional credibility over decades. An expert witness applies that expertise by analyzing the facts of a particular case, forming independent opinions, communicating those opinions clearly, and helping attorneys, judges, and juries understand complex issues.
The strongest expert witnesses build on their technical expertise by developing the qualities attorneys evaluate throughout the selection process. They remain objective when new facts emerge. They welcome thoughtful preparation with the legal team. They respond professionally when circumstances change. And they understand that credibility is demonstrated not only through the opinions they offer, but also through the professionalism and judgment they demonstrate
The most effective expert witnesses recognize that preparation with the legal team is an essential part of the process, not because their opinions need to change, but because even the strongest opinion has little value if it cannot be understood. Preparing to communicate clearly is very different from preparing what to say.
Successful expert witnesses also never stop learning. They seek feedback after interviews, depositions, and testimony. They continue refining how to explain complex concepts, respond to difficult questions, and communicate with people who do not share their technical background. Every engagement becomes an opportunity to become a more effective expert witness.
Putting Your Expertise to Work as an Expert Witness
Years spent developing specialized knowledge, experience, and professional credibility as a subject-matter expert create the opportunity to serve as an expert witness. Learning how to apply that expertise within the legal process is what earns the confidence of attorneys and ultimately leads to being retained.
The role of an expert witness requires applying your expertise differently. Rather than making decisions or advocating for a particular course of action, expert witnesses apply their knowledge and experience to the facts of a case with independence, objectivity, and professional judgment.
That is what makes the role both challenging and rewarding. It is an opportunity to put decades of knowledge and experience to meaningful use in service of the legal process, helping attorneys, judges, and juries understand complex issues through independent analysis and objective expertise.
About the Author
Seth Cohen is Eleven Canterbury’s Managing Partner
