Engaging Experts
After 25 years helping litigators find the right expert witnesses, Round Table Group’s network contains some of the world’s greatest experts. On this podcast, we talk to some of them about what’s new in their field of study and their experience as expert witnesses.
Engaging Experts
Engaging with Medical Product Regulatory Expert, Steve Silverman
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Our guest Steve Silverman is the President of Silverman Group, a consultancy that serves medical product companies on regulatory strategy and policy issues, and an expert consultant for NDA. Additionally, he has over two decades of experience in federal service, including senior roles at the FDA. Mr. Silverman holds a JD from the University of Pennsylvania.
In this episode…
Learning from your mistakes is crucial, according to Mr. Silverman. As a new expert witness, it is easy to jump into your first engagement relying solely on expertise, but doing your homework is just as important. He recommends a proactive approach—question your attorney before accepting an engagement to make sure expectations are clear.
Check out the entire episode for our discussion on remote etiquette, billable research, and expertise as a trainable skill.
Introduction to Steve Silverman
Speaker 1This episode is brought to you by Roundtable Group, the experts on experts. We've been connecting attorneys with experts for over 30 years. Find out more at roundtablegroupcom. Welcome to Engaging Experts. I'm your host, noah Balmer, and today's guest is Steve Silverman. Now Mr Silverman is the president of the Silverman Group, a consultancy that serves medical product companies on regulatory strategy and policy issues. He is also an expert consultant for NDA Partners. Additionally, he has over two decades in federal service, including senior roles at the FDA. Now Mr Silverman holds a JD from the University of Pennsylvania. Mr Silverman, thank you so much for joining me here today on Engaging Experts.
Speaker 2It's a pleasure to be here and the podcast definitely can't go forward unless you call me Steve.
Speaker 1All right, Steve. Well, let's jump into it. With an extensive history in the FDA and medical device regulatory affairs, how did you first become involved in expert witnessing?
Speaker 2It was a pretty easy transition for me from the point where I decided to start my own consultancy, which happened roughly three and a half or four years ago. I didn't initially plan to work as an expert witness, but in the course of digging into the consultancy, doing some traditional straight consulting work and then thinking about other business opportunities, I thought, you know, I've got litigation experience, I've deposed witnesses, I've presented witnesses at trial. I think that I have the basic competency to be an effective expert witness, and so I just layered that work stream into my consultancy and that's really the genesis story.
Speaker 1Were you seeking expert witness engagements through your consultancy or did you just get a call one day?
Speaker 2Honestly, a bit of both. But to be truthful, I got a call one day from an attorney at a law firm who was referred to me by one of his partners who I had worked with professionally, and he said you know, I have this work. We need an FDA expert regulatory witness. Is this something that you are interested in doing? And I said, with great, great confidence and very, very little ability sure, no problem, I can do it and I can tell you, I can tell you definitively that engagement was a hard fail. I'm happy to say there have been a number of subsequent very positive experiences, but the hubris I think that I brought into the process, kind of assuming that I could be an effective expert witness simply because of my prior litigation experience, my training as a lawyer, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 2not knowing what I know now, it was just ridiculous that I kind of blithely assumed that I could do a good job without doing basic homework.
Speaker 1Yeah, that's interesting and you know, some of the most helpful stories are the negative things, because it happens to everybody, you know everybody has a bad engagement and often enough it is their first or among their first few engagements. So let's break it down a little. What were some of the mistakes you made and, more importantly or as importantly, what did you do to rectify them moving forward.
Speaker 2I mean, look, your point about negative lessons I think is well taken and, man, you know, the lessons that I remember, unfortunately, are usually the ones that came with pain.
Speaker 2And I don't want to live a life where I'm constantly getting beaten up in order to learn things, but those are the lessons that tend to stick. So in this case, I told the lawyer who had retained me look, I haven't done this before and I believe that I can do a good job. You let me know what you need and we'll kind of go along from here and you will advise what you're looking for and I'll respond. That was a mistake. What I needed to do was to affirmatively and proactively confirm and shape the engagement, including timing, and then again proactively advise the attorney OK, look, if this is what you want, these are the materials that I am looking for. If you can provide them, this is what I would expect to review. This is what I think my deliverable is going to be, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 2The onus was on me to be the professional and to really shape the engagement, and if I didn't know because I hadn't had prior expert experience what that looked like, then the onus was on me to figure it out. And I didn't. I assumed, incorrectly, that I would get clear guidance from the attorney about what he was looking for, including timing, and things went sideways and, candidly, the things that went wrong, they were on me. I failed to do what I needed to do, and so there was pain and there were lessons learned.
Speaker 1Be that as it may and it's very gracious of you to take it on the chin Is there something as an attorney yourself? Is there something that attorneys could be doing or should be doing with new expert witnesses to make sure that they're adequately prepared? Is it not partially their responsibility, working for the end client, to make sure that their expert witness is not only an expert but ready to go?
First Expert Witness Experience
Speaker 2Yeah, I think that that's true I do I mean? True, I do. I mean, look realistically. Yes, If I were advising an attorney, I would say to him or her look, it's the same responsibility. You know, if you retain an expert, you have to make sure that you are proactively doing the things to shape the expert testimony in a way that works for your case, to make sure that the expert is supported, has the information that the expert needs, be proactive, et cetera, et cetera, and that's fine.
Speaker 2And in the abstract, yes, those are things that experts should be able to rely on. My experience is that oftentimes that's not the case, and I don't want to be an expert. I don't like bad surprises.
Speaker 2I don't want to be the person who gets a call saying look, we need the report in a week and then being nowhere close to having done the research, the preparation et cetera, to get the deliverable to hammer her on time. And if I'm not getting what I need from the attorney, then in my view it's on me to define what's necessary to provide competent expert input to a case.
Speaker 1Absolutely. Let's talk a little bit about depositions and trials. Have you been in a trial setting or a deposition setting yet?
Speaker 2I have been in a deposition setting as an expert right.
Speaker 2I have published expert reports and I have been deposed. I have not been to trial yet. I've been doing expert witness work for the last three, three and a half years, so it's not a terribly long time. And you know it's civil litigation most civil litigation settles, so it's not a huge surprise that I haven't been to trial. In my past life as an attorney for the government, I have been to trial and I have done many, many, many many depositions. In those cases I was sitting there as the government's representative. I was a lawyer that was either taking or defending a deposition. I think the advantage for the work that I do right now is that none of the things that I see are particularly surprising. I know what it's like to be in a deposition and, frankly, I know what it's like to be in a trial setting to be in a trial setting, as somebody who probably has put other expert witnesses in the hot seat.
Speaker 1as an attorney, how does it feel to have the shoe on the other foot? What's it like getting deposed?
Speaker 2You know, it's really interesting to me because I think that my role as an expert is not adversarial when I'm being deposed, for example, by opposing counsel, which is really different than the mindset that I had when I was an attorney representing the government right, where my job was to litigate and win cases. This is different.
Speaker 2I have particular expertise about FDA regulatory practice and my job, ultimately, is to explain, in my opinion, what the answer is to the regulatory issue that I have been asked to take a look at. And ultimately, ultimately, I think that my quote, unquote, quote, unquote client or constituent is the judge or the trier of fact. I mean, I need to explain to them what's going on. So if I am being deposed, for example, by opposing counsel, and they are asking me questions about my expert report, for example, sure, they're trying to poke holes and they're testing and prodding and sometimes misbehaving, but at the end of the day, my job is to stick by what my expert opinion is, explain that expert opinion and then the underlying litigation follows the course that it follows.
Deposition Preparation and Approach
Speaker 1Absolutely. Tell me a little bit about your preparation for getting into a deposition. For instance, I have a good number of interviewees who have some kind of a pre-deposition or, for that matter, pre-trial ritual. They like to meditate, they like to drink lots of coffee. They like a big meal or no meal or heavy metal? What's your pre-deposition regimen, if you have one?
Speaker 2You know there's a lot of incense burning. I'm not going to admit on Mike to animal sacrifice, but I'm not saying that doesn't happen, you know, truthfully. Truthfully, I do not have a formal ritual that I follow, although I think that your other guests who do so are very smart and it makes sense. I would say this not surprisingly. Getting ready for a deposition involves a lot of preparation, with the attorney whose client I'm representing, trying to get as much information as I can about what the opposing counsel is like, what they are looking for, the manner in which they have conducted themselves, and even looking at their depositions of other witnesses in the matter to get a sense of how it is that they operate, so that when I walk into a deposition, I feel like I am very cognizant of the points that I want to make, why I believe those points are well supported, how I would answer questions about them. It's really more just a function of being very comfortable with and on top of, the statements and expert conclusions that I have reached previously.
Speaker 1Let's talk a little bit about etiquette. When you are being deposed, how do you like to present yourself? Are there any guidelines that you think that might be useful to newer expert witnesses regarding demeanor and etiquette?
Speaker 2Yeah, I think that's so. You know, I actually have. I actually have one really good piece of advice that was given to me at this point because I'm old, given to me decades ago, which is to say, stand up. So while I am talking to you, I am standing, I have a very nice riser for my laptop and I, you know, raise it up and I stand on my feet. I really and in depositions, many of which are conducted remotely, much like this podcast is being done there's no impediment to standing and it's not rude to be standing while being deposed by opposing counsel, for example I really believe that there's a physical and psychological benefit to being on my feet. It tends to make me more alert, more focused, less tired, and so, in some respects, the simple statement stand up is kind of trite, but on the other hand, I think it works and I think it's an easy thing to do. So that's my tip.
Speaker 1Are you able to do that over long periods of time? I've heard expert witnesses tell me that they've been deposed for six hours, eight hours at a time. I've heard expert witnesses tell me that they've been deposed for six hours eight hours at a time. Are you able to stand up that long?
Speaker 2Yeah, I mean yes, and you're right. I mean being on your feet for a very, very extended period of time can be tiring, and there's no sense in doing it if it's going to be physically punishing. By the same token, even in long depositions, breaks are frequent. If I need to take a break and then decide that I'm going to sit down for a while, it's fine. So it's a very manageable process.
Speaker 2And also just because I've built the habit. I tend to stand most of my workday, so it's really nothing terribly unusual. Most of my workday, so it's really nothing. It's nothing terribly unusual.
Speaker 1You had mentioned earlier about cases going to settlement in civil litigation, With more cases going to settlement. How does that affect your role as an expert witness?
Speaker 2Yeah, you know, I think that that's a really good question and I gave that question some thought prior to our taping today because you were nice enough to give me a heads up about it. And here's what I would say I really don't think that the number of cases going to settlement or the settlement trajectory radically changes my role as an expert. Part of the reason is because of the work that I'm doing, so I am not, for example, responsible for calculating monetary damages. That's not my expertise. And it's not my expertise, for example, to advise what the cost of a particular business transaction was right. My rule and I think this is probably true for many experts is to say okay, this is what the facts and events indicate. Given the information that has been presented to me, this is my view of the situation.
Speaker 2These are the reasons that I am supporting the opinion that I have developed and then, really it's on the lawyer, for example, representing the client, to say look, you know, we had this testimony. We think it's compelling testimony. Here is what our expert would be prepared to say if this case were to go forward at trial to a judge or a jury, at trial to a judge or a jury and as a result, we believe, for example, that we are really well positioned to win at trial and therefore we want to settle the case and ultimately the settlement takes the course that settlement often does between attorneys.
Speaker 1Do you see the role evolving in the future? Are there any trends that you've noticed from the past couple of years that you've been doing this?
Speaker 2Yes, I think that comfort with technology is going to be a very important attribute for experts, which is not to say that experts need to be computer engineers or that they need to understand you know how exactly artificial intelligence or machine learning works.
Speaker 2But when a deposition is conducted as has been the case for me remotely and online remotely and online right and each person in the deposition me, the lawyer that I'm working for, opposing counsel, even the stenographer are in different locations, right and the deposition is moving forward it's important to understand that that creates a somewhat different nature dynamic. That's going to impact for me the way that I engage, how I feel about the interaction. I feel like under those circumstances, I need to be a little bit more alert, a little bit more careful, because there's not as much focus or adrenaline as I might find in an in-person setting and there is some basic just blocking and tackling, making sure that I have a strong signal, talking to counsel in advance and say look, if the call drops or things go sideways, what do you want to do? And then, if those things occur, just being comfortable with those types of events.
Speaker 1Do you have a process? So if you lose power and everything, are you ready to go with tethering to your cell phone or do you have some backup solution?
Speaker 2I have a DoD level generator.
Speaker 1I have my own one no, I mean so.
Speaker 2So to your point, the only the precautions that I take are the basic, are the basic precautions, which is to say, I don't know enough to create my own wi-fi connections, but I have a good person who does and I work with him to make sure that I have a strong wi-fi connection. I have confidence in my laptop. It's a good laptop. I know enough to know that if I'm being deposed, for example, and I have other applications open on my laptop, that I should close them down because it will improve bandwidth and I don't want them to mysteriously appear during the deposition, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 2So there's nothing, I mean there is nothing magical about what I am doing. By the same token, so there's nothing, I mean there is nothing magical about what I am doing. By the same token, it's worth a little bit of kind of basic due diligence about what's different. When depositions or other types of interactions will say is you know, and this is, this is just, this is truly, truly, truly a personal preference thing. When I am being deposed or I am talking for the first time with counsel or talking to witnesses, what have you, I will put on my big boy clothes.
Speaker 2I mean I'm having a conversation with you where I'm wearing a dress shirt. I decided not to wear a sport coat because I knew that none of this was going to be recorded Right. But the process of actually putting on professional clothes and standing in the way that I have said I think helps to get me into the right mindset and so, like I said, that's a personal preference. I don't think that's a magic formula, but when I am in a deposition setting, for example, I want to be the best version of me, the most present, the most focused, and I feel like, as ridiculous as it sounds, the quote unquote suiting up actually does make sense.
Speaker 1Absolutely, and you're not the first person who said so. Let's talk about some of the cases that you've done. Have you been in any cases that have either reinforced the way that you do something or change the way that you go about doing something as an expert witness? Obviously beyond the singular, bad first case.
Speaker 2Yeah, you know. Look, my job as an expert is to actually let me take a step back and talk about what kind of expert work I do. Right, because for a lot of your guests they won't know. So I am an FDA regulatory expert.
Speaker 1So what does that?
Speaker 2mean, I worked at FDA for a long time and I've worked in that regulatory space for a long time.
Speaker 2Most of my work focuses on medical devices, but not all of it. I also do some work with drugs and other types of medical products and my job pretty much uniformly involves explaining to counsel, to triers, of fact, what have you, what do FDA regulatory requirements mean? And that makes sense, because the FDA regulatory requirements are. I think they are not intentionally confusing, but they're a little bit arcane. I think that if you take a look at any one of a variety of government agencies, whether it's Department of Energy or Department of Defense or border security, whatever their regulatory requirements potentially are going to be confusing and people who are unfamiliar with those organizations for good reason are not going to understand what those regulatory requirements are.
Speaker 2So it makes sense to bring in people from the outside who have lived within those regulatory environments for a long period of time to say, like, okay, what does X regulatory provision really mean? Or if a company does A, b and C, did they meet regulatory requirements, did they not? If they didn't meet the regulatory requirements, well, what does that mean? Like, does it mean that they're? So? One of the questions that I will get answered or get asked a lot is okay, if there are quality requirements for device manufacturers that exist very broadly for all of their products that have already made it to the market, and the FDA comes in and does an inspection and finds that certain quality requirements have not been satisfied properly, right, so there is a violation.
Speaker 2Does that mean that the product produced at the facility where the violation was found is unsafe?
Speaker 2or ineffective right, because oftentimes that will be the allegation, and for reasons that I am not going to bore you with, the answer is no. But there's no, really no reason why attorneys who don't do FDA work all the time or other individuals who are not familiar with FDA would know the answer to that question. I do, because this is the world that I've lived in for a couple of decades. My job is then to explain to the attorney, to opposing counsel, to others, like okay, look, this is what the regulatory requirement says, here's the implications of violating it, here's what it means for, ultimately, the medical device or the drug or other product that comes to consumers.
Speaker 1In your field is there a certain amount of dynamism. Does the law change frequently? Do you have to stay on top of changing regulations and trends in that manner, or is it fairly static?
Speaker 2I think that's a great question and I can see you on video, so I see you smiling. So, yes, let me compliment you with the excellence of your question Profound, but it really is a good question because the answer is yes. Things change in at least two respects, which I'll explain, and I do think it's important to pay attention, and I will also talk about the fact that there are some things that are really kind of bedrock and don't change. So let me start with that. Look, the bedrock. Fta has a bedrock requirement for medical products that they need to be safe and effective before they come to market and there needs to be some type of determination by the agency about product safety and efficacy. That is a prerequisite for getting the products onto the market. You cannot go into the pacemaker business and start selling your products ignoring the fact that all of those products have to go through FDA review before you start selling. Right.
Speaker 1That's bedrock.
Speaker 2And FDA. I mean it is really in the FDA's DNA to say we want safe and effective medical products coming to market Right now.
Speaker 2What that means in 2025, in terms of the evolution of technology and the extraordinary change that we have seen in the political environment over the last decade. There have been absolutely transformative changes in medical devices. The impact of technology on devices has been a tectonic shift for the industry. So if you look, for example, at the things, at things like the like heart pacemakers right, I believe that I can. So I can, I can pretty confidently say that there are no longer pacemakers being sold that do not have high technology software capability, which means that there is software that helps the pacemakers to function properly in the heart.
Speaker 2But there is also very, very advanced communication between the pacemaker and the company. That makes it so that there is a kind of constant feed of information to the company, which can then be provided to the healthcare provider. So there is real-time data monitoring to see what's happening with the pacemaker once it's been implanted. And that is just one of a basket full of examples. In the diagnostic space, there are huge, huge, huge changes in terms of the ability for doctors to read and interpret x-rays. That is powered by huge, huge computing capability and artificial intelligence, right.
Speaker 2And so instead of having a thousand images that a doctor can get access to. That builds on his or her years of experience looking at films, knowing what's a problem, what's not a problem. They suddenly have hundreds of thousands of images and they are not the ones who are initially looking through those images. It's not to say that the docs are ceding responsibility to technology, because they're not, but the scope of information and the relevance and the references that can be drawn from the technology are jaw-dropping.
Speaker 1How do you stay on top of all of it? How do you stay informed? Do you read journals? You know what is in your field. How do you remain current?
Speaker 2The way to do it, I think, is to be reasonably thoughtful about where it is that I want to dig in and where I may want to simply know that something exists. But I'm not going to be somebody who has a lot of knowledge closely at hand.
Speaker 2So for example, I like talking about artificial intelligence, machine learning and other technological issues as they relate to devices, because I think that they are incredibly interesting. Right, and actually in my expert work and in my consulting work, the huge minority of matters that I handle involve artificial intelligence, machine learning, quantum computing what have you? They don't. Still, I think it's just incredibly interesting. So, yes, when I look at journal articles or trade publications for the device industry and they speak to those topics, I'm likely to read them. If somebody is doing a webinar to those topics, I'm likely to read them. If somebody is doing a webinar, for example, on topics that fall within those categories, I'm likely to tune in. There are other things that are super, super important, like changes in how clinical trials are being conducted for devices and other FDA regulated products, and I think that's an example of something that I just yeah, I know about it a little bit, but if I have an attorney who says I need to know a lot about an issue in this area, I'm going to have to study up.
Speaker 1You know that's something that a lot of experts have to do. Obviously, you're not going to have the entire wealth of knowledge you know that might be pertinent to your field at your fingertips. Is that billable, in your opinion? If you have to do some additional research into something that is ostensibly in your area, is that a billable occurrence?
Speaker 2I think that it absolutely is billable and I think that it's frankly, basic, responsible practice to be very transparent with the attorney about the fact that I'm going to do the work and I'm going to bill for it, right.
Speaker 2And so I've just I've never, ever, had a problem with any attorney that I'm talking to, saying like I think I need five or six hours to go back and learn about this topic in order to speak about it competently. And I just want to let you know, and it's just going to be part of my preparation process I think that the attorneys, the attorneys who I've dealt with uniformly, have said, yeah, ok, that's fine. If they had a problem with it I'd have the conversation, but that, but that that hasn't happened. And again, speaking for me, I mean I have had jobs in the past where I have walked into a room and have been asked to speak to topics where I felt like walking into the room very, very heavy levels of imposter syndrome and I don't like that feeling. And so if I had an attorney who said to me I don't really want you to do the background work, I'm not sure that it's an engagement that I would want to pursue.
Speaker 1Sure, Along those lines have you had to say no to a significant number of engagements.
Speaker 2The answer to that question is no.
Speaker 2I have not had to say no to a significant number of engagements, but I think that the reason that I haven't had to is that I've been able to define pretty clearly what it is that I'm interested in doing and what I'm not on the front end, and what I'm willing to say and not on the front end.
Speaker 2So, for example, there is a lot of product liability litigation involving medical products, right Plaintiffs suing medical product manufacturers, for example, claiming that the product that they used failed and they were harmed. I don't work in that area. It's a personal choice, right, and so I just don't want to be an expert in that context. And so what that means is I don't have to, in the midst of a representation, turn down or turn away lawyers, because I don't begin doing that kind of work. By the same token, I'm usually able, at a pretty early point in time, to tell counsel what I think my position is going to be. The caveat is like I have to learn here's what I need to know, here's what I'm going to dig into, but I can give them a 10,000 foot answer, and usually, sometimes that will happen even before I'm engaged.
Speaker 1And if that's?
Speaker 2not the answer that works for the attorney, then they don't engage me and that's okay.
Speaker 1Absolutely. Let's back up and talk about a few general ideas regarding expert witnessing. Why are expert witnesses important to just jurisprudence overall? Why do we have expert witnesses? Why is the work that we do important and significant?
Expert Witness Team Dynamics
Speaker 2The best answer that I can give you, noah, is what I was talking about in terms of I know a lot about a very narrow band of law and regulatory practice. Right, if you need somebody, if you need somebody to explain to you how FDA regulates medical products and, in particular, how it regulates devices, I can do a good job of telling you about that. Right, it's unreasonable, in my opinion, to expect that an attorney who is more of a generalist and is handling a commercial matter, for example, that that individual is going to develop the same level of knowledge and expertise. Certainly, they are going to understand a lot of the things that I will talk about, but not with the same depth. And to the extent that it is unreasonable to expect them to develop that expertise, I think it's even more unreasonable to expect that a judge or a jury is going to have the expertise right and so, inevitably, is going to have the expertise right, and so inevitably, inevitably, there is going to be litigation in which parties are arguing about the significance of an FDA regulation or FDA legal practice or FDA practice in fact, right, and they need somebody to come in and say, okay, like, actually, like, actually. Let me just tell you. This is what it means, this is what it doesn't mean. Here's the landscape, and then that information informs right, informs the overall trial process.
Speaker 2The other thing I'll say, noah, that's really interesting, for me at least, is you know, I can't think of, I would be hard pressed to think of a single matter that I've been involved in where the issues that I am testifying about are the only major issues in play. Right, sure, I am, I am a piece of the puzzle, right of the puzzle. Right? Either the plaintiff or the defendant has said oh well, you know, our case is supported in part by FDA statute or regulatory practice in the following ways right, and it's an argument, and the attorney that is dealing with that argument needs to competently get enough information to manage it. But that's not the only thing that they're going to have to deal with. So fine, I'm part of a larger team, I've got a piece of the puzzle and I can make management of that piece of the puzzle a little bit easier so that the attorney can then focus on all the other stuff.
Speaker 1Speaking of being on a team, have you been on larger teams that have a number of expert witnesses perhaps consultants, other parties and if so, what are those interactions like? To what extent do expert witnesses work with other members of the trial team besides the attorney?
Speaker 2In my experience insofar as.
Speaker 2I have been involved in larger teams. It really is a function of working with the trial team. So the individuals who I come to know and engage with most regularly are part of a discrete team of lawyers who I work with over the course of the litigation. That being said, right, there are a number of firms including the firm that is kindly hosting this podcast that aggregate experts and make them available to attorneys and others so that, when they have particular expert needs, rather than having to go out individually and search the earth for the right person, they're able to go to a consultancy and say, okay, this is basically what I am looking for, this is what I need. Do you have somebody who can fit the bill? And I have that relationship, as you know, with NDA partners, with other consultancies, and when my skill set is one that meets the needs of counsel, then they put my name forward.
Speaker 2What I will tell you, in some respects, what I'm thinking is like, okay, big deal, they put my name forward. What I will tell you, you know, in some respects, noah, what I'm thinking is like, okay, big deal, most people know this. What's the takeaway? And I think that the takeaway for the folks listening to this podcast is um for is this, which is be very clear about what you, what I can do and what I can't do, right, I mean, it's just, it's incredibly important to say both to the quote-unquote aggregator and to counsel like geez, I don't know exactly about the issue that you're raising, but I think I can learn enough to come up with an answer, or to say like, yeah, I got this, and here's what my answer would be. Or to say like, no, this is not me, I don't know about it, I can't do it.
Speaker 1And then, if it, happens, as is often the case, to say oh hey, you know what?
Advice for New Experts
Speaker 2I actually have a suggestion. I know somebody. I'm not the person, but I think I know the person and that's gold. I mean, I have had lawyers come back to me later saying, like, oh, this is a different matter, but I remember talking to you and I really appreciated the recommendation and now I want to work with you. So it's just a great dynamic.
Speaker 1Absolutely. Before we wrap up, do you have any advice for expert witnesses, in particular newer expert witnesses or, in fact, attorneys that are working with expert witnesses?
Speaker 2I do, noah, and I will chunk my response into the advice that I would give to newer attorneys and the advice that I would give to newer attorneys or, excuse me, to attorneys and the advice that I would give to newer experts, right? And so let me start with those experts and say emphatically being an expert witness is a skill, right? It is not something that you are born with. It is not like your ability to play pro basketball, right, you know you don't need to be, you don't need to grow to 6'8 and to be able to shoot three points shots on the regular. It is a skill, it can and must be acquired, and there are lots of resources out there that are available to expert witnesses to get better at being an expert witness, to get better at writing concise and compelling expert reports, to get better at giving depositions and delivering testimony. And, like anything else associated with our professional work, it requires diligence and practice. So, for individuals who are expert witness on US nuclear regulatory policy great, you're a genius and you literally know how nuclear bombs and other devices are built. That means you're amazing. That doesn't mean that you can do a great job talking about it to your own lawyer, to a judge to opposing counsel. So that's okay. It means that you just need to learn, and that is a function. That is a function of proactively going out, figuring out what resources are needed and then gathering and applying those resources.
Speaker 2Don't make the mistake that I made, which was to assume that the attorney that I was working for would give me what I needed to do a good job. So that is the new consultant chunk For the attorney right. All I would say is this attorney right. All I would say is this I get it. I get it that you are super busy. I get it that you have 100 plates that you are trying to keep spinning. I am just one of those plates and your job is not to live to make sure that all of my needs are met in the timing and the timeline that works best for me.
Speaker 2Right Understood, my job is to make things easier for you, to give you what you need so that you can have the best outcome that you want to achieve for your client To do that right. To do that, let's get real clear very, very early on in terms of what the deliverable is, how it's going to be delivered, what is a good outcome for you, what does a good product look like and when do you need it right? So invest the time on the front end to clarify those basic issues, in consultation with the experts, so that there is a clear view as to what the expert will be providing. And if there is any discrepancy between what you're trying to develop in terms of your case theory and what the expert can credibly say, bring that to the surface soon and create an environment in which that kind of information is being communicated by the expert at an early point in time.
Speaker 1Excellent, sage advice. Steve, thank you so much for joining me here today.
Speaker 2Oh, it was a pleasure. I really enjoyed it. Thank you for giving me the chance to prattle on.
Speaker 1Absolutely, and thank you, as always, to our listeners for joining us for another episode of Engaging Experts Cheers. Thank you for listening to our podcast, Engaging Experts. Our show notes are available on our website roundtablegroupcom.