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 Vocational Expert, Merrill Cohen
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
In this episode…
Our guest, Ms. Merrill Cohen, is a vocational consultant and life care planner for Strategic Consulting Services. She’s an experienced expert witness in both federal and state court and a certified rehabilitation counselor and certified life care planner. Ms. Cohen holds a master's in counseling from Seattle University.
It’s easy to get shaken up as a new expert, according to Ms. Cohen. She recalls getting annoyed at opposing counsel when they’d ask the same question over and over, changing a word or two to try and obtain a different answer. These days, it’s just a matter of answering honestly, “you get paid for every time you have to answer”, she reasons.
Check out the entire episode for our discussion on red flags, freebie consultations, and controlling your testifying demeanor.
Introduction to Meryl Cohen
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, Noel Ballmer, and today I'm excited to welcome Ms Meryl Cohen to the show. Ms Cohen is a vocational consultant and life care planner for Strategic Consulting Services. She's an experienced expert witness in federal and state court and is a certified rehabilitation counselor and a certified life care planner. Ms Cohen holds a master's in counseling from Seattle University. Ms Cohen, thank you so much for joining me here today.
Speaker 2Well, thank you for inviting me.
Speaker 1Of course, let's jump into it. So you've been engaged as a life care planner since the early 90s. How did you first become involved in expert witnessing?
Speaker 2Yes, so my primary field is vocational rehabilitation and that was where I started as an expert.
Breaking into Expert Witnessing
Speaker 2So I was working as a voc rehab counselor, working with people who were injured under the Washington workers' compensation system, doing the assignments that were required to do in terms of assisting them with return to work, evaluating whether or not they have skills for work, whether or not they would be eligible for retraining, those kinds of things. So I was just going about my regular work. Two things happened. One is one of my cases a worker's comp case was an electrician who was in a motor vehicle accident and that was his L&I case. But he had a third-party case and his third-party attorney asked if I would be an expert in the civil case, since I was already working with him on the workers' comp. So that was my first actual case. The people I was working for at the time the owners of the company were very involved in expert work, so they were able to kind of guide me and once I got my foot in the door they opened some other doors for me and helped me expand that aspect of my work.
Speaker 1So when you say open the door for you, did they kind of show you the ropes? What are the sorts of things that expert witnesses benefit from in terms of mentoring, in terms of things to ask during their first engagement from somebody who's already been there?
Speaker 2Well, honestly, the first thing that we benefit from is getting work. Of course, how does anybody even know that you're an expert, especially in this field? In Washington State L&NI, for example Labor and Industries there's hundreds of vocational rehabilitation counselors that work in that arena. So which one of them, if any, are you going to call to be an expert in a legal case? So I'm going to say the main thing that my bosses did for me was promote me. They were both in a position where they wanted to work less, so introducing me to their referral base one by one.
Speaker 2And once you do one or two cases and they like you, then the attorneys will recommend you to other attorneys and that kind of thing. So that has to happen first and along the way, it's great to have somebody to ask questions to and to get little pearls of wisdom and encouragement. However, experience is something that you have to earn. You can't buy it. You can't borrow it. There were so many times early on it's like oh, why didn't I know that and you just you have to make mistakes and learn from them yourself. You can't get it all from just reading or talking to somebody, but they absolutely helped me along the way.
Early Mistakes and Lessons Learned
Speaker 1So you have to make mistakes. Now I want to ask you one of the most uncomfortable questions but one of the most useful ones that I have to ask my guests what are some of those mistakes and what are some of the red flags? What are some of the things that can go wrong? As an experienced professional, let's just take little things.
Speaker 2So, for example, in a deposition okay, opposing counsel will ask me a question and I give them an answer and then they ask it again and maybe they change the word a little bit and maybe they try to point me in a direction, to answer it in a way they want or they try to, and early on I would get really annoyed. It's like I said that already or as I testified to, and like that was wrong. I mean, they're paying me. If they want me to say the same thing 12 times, while they pay me, what do I care? So you know it's an attitude shift. So that's just an example Knowing what to ask for.
Speaker 2Another kind of mistake I made early on, and it only really bit me once or twice but not being provided with all the information that's out there, for example, opposing expert reports being kind of left out to dry when you're deposed and they say well, are you aware of the report from doctors X, y and Z? No, I didn't know anything about them. It's just so much better to know what they have to say, be prepared to address it one way or the other. So now I make sure, after I've received a file, if there are not opposing expert reports or if things are missing, that I know exist and they didn't give me. Now I ask for them.
Speaker 1So you recommend a proactive approach in terms of talking to your attorney and making sure that you are fully equipped to write your own reports and to be ready on the stand when they hit you with some of what the opposing side says.
Speaker 2Yeah and don't hide anything, so I'll tell you a story. From early on, you told me people like stories.
Speaker 1They love stories.
Speaker 2I forget anything about the case per se, but I was being deposed per se. But I was being deposed and I recall that in my characterization of the plaintiff she was a good worker, blah, blah, blah. And I give my opinion based on that kind of assessment. And the attorney deposing me whips out a sheet of paper which is something like an employee review that shows that she's always late and she's on the verge of being fired and all this stuff. And he says well, now that you've seen that, would that change your opinion? So I gave the classic answer would that change your opinion? So I gave the classic answer it may right, I don't know. And then the attorney who hired me was actually upset that I backed off my opinion, which of course I hadn't. But I was even more upset that he didn't give me all the information so I could have addressed it head on.
Speaker 1Let's back up for a moment. Let's talk about those initial engagement phone calls First of all. Do you do those for free? When somebody gets you on the phone and wants to hit you with some of the facts of their case, see if you're the right person, Do you give them an initial free consultation? Do you give them an?
Contracts, Fees, and Getting Paid
Speaker 2initial free consultation, absolutely. And if I don't, if somebody doesn't spend the time, that can be really bad. Again, you're making me think of all these stories. So here's a story Very early on.
Speaker 2This is one of the cases that one of my bosses said well, my colleague will do this for you. So we set up the case. This is way before video and way before COVID, and this was a case of a young man who went to Alaska in the summer and did some fishing and had an injury on a fishing boat. So I don't really know anything about it. They make the plans for him to fly out from New York, where he lives, to meet with me in Washington state to get this evaluation going Well.
Speaker 2It turns out and had we had an initial discussion this would not have happened that the guy was a college student who had kind of an upper and arm injury and apparently it's unsightly and he needs to wear long sleeves or something and he's not a fisherman and there's no impact on his future earnings. And he's not a fisherman and there's no impact on his future earnings. In fact, the program he was in, a bachelor's in business, is exactly what I would have recommended for him had he not been in it and the lawyer was really mad that he spent all this money and sent him after. But he didn't take the time to talk to us about what the case was, because had he spent 15 minutes, we would have said no, there's really nothing we can do to help you.
Speaker 1No, it's important because you know, a lot of people don't realize that it is a two way vetting process. It's not just the the attorney vetting you, but it's you vetting the attorney. Is this somebody that I want to work with? Do I have the appropriate experience to be able to opine on this specific fact pattern? So what are some of the questions that you like to ask engaging attorneys to make sure that you are an appropriate expert witness for the engagement? Great question.
Speaker 2So I like to understand kind of the basic fact pattern of the case, because often the attorneys don't really understand this process now. So early on the attorneys taught me a lot. Well, now I'm teaching the attorneys a lot. They don't understand why I need medical foundation to develop a vocational opinion. So often I'm helping them. I'm saying okay, well, you don't have this, you don't have that. Maybe you want to have a functional capacity evaluation done and see how that turns out and then we can decide if a vocational analysis makes sense and then we'll have some foundation to do one. I don't want to just have somebody say here's a case and I say okay, and then I end up in that situation where I'm like, well, are you kidding me? What do you want me to do with this? Or we don't have the foundation worked up and we're coming up on a discovery deadline or something like that and they're looking for a medical expert to get in with and it just becomes a big cluster.
Speaker 1Do you find that that's a problem where attorneys want to engage you with insufficient time to be able to properly review the case, form an opinion, write your expert witness report and perhaps prepare for any depositions and cross-examinations that there might be going forward? Or do you feel that you typically are engaged in a timely enough manner that you do have enough time for all of that?
Speaker 2Well, it's all over the map. Okay, often I have plenty of time. But even if I'm engaged early and this I can be engaged way early but if they're waiting for their medical expert report and that doesn't come until we're up against a deadline, then I'm still rushed because I couldn't have done anything without that. Things that appear to be referred with plenty of time often end up becoming a rush anyway. But if I do get like a very quick turnover case, of course it's up to me to take it or not. I can say, yeah, sorry, buddy, but what I have done is implemented a rush fee and I've left it in our fee agreement very vague that if a turnaround is less than two weeks from date of referral, a rush fee of 20 to 50 percent may be imposed. And it just depends on how big of a rush, how busy I am. I just use my judgment. It's like what is it worth it to me to take on this project? And then I tell them at the time so they're not shocked when they get the bill. I will say, in fact I just got one from one of these referral panels Can you do this case? They need it on the 7th. I'm like sure I will do it, but tell them there'll be a 25% rush fee. If they want to do it, I'll do it. So that's held. It's something that you incur. You have to maybe push out some of the other work that you have Along those lines. Are there any other terms in contracts that you like do have a retainer, a non-refundable retainer, and I know that everybody does that.
Speaker 2A couple reasons why I work for a company where there's several of us that do expert work and we won't oppose each other and this happened a couple of times where I do a conflict check to set up a case and I'm like, yeah, sorry, jennifer has it from the defense, I can't take it. So that's. You know, we're taken off the street all of us when one side hires us, so it's not fundable in order to get that case in our database. So we know there's a conflict In terms of flat fee. We do a flat fee for one kind of case and this also came out of experience that's marital dissolution, because the lawyers don't pay, the divorcing parties pay and we learned early on we're not going to be chasing Mr or Ms Divorcee up for money.
Speaker 2So not only is it flat rate, it's prepaid and basically it's 10 hours at our litigation rate. If it takes me five hours I'm getting 10. And if it takes me 25 hours I'm getting 10. And it's up until trial. And if we do have to do additional work and testify, then there's additional. Then we do bill that. So lot rate. There's retainer or I don't my rate for travel time, it's just our professional rate. I say or negotiate a daily rate, because if we're going to be going like, for example, I just went down to the southern part of Washington State and I did not bill for the three-hour train trip each way, yeah, so I can make a negotiated rate, but we don't have a lower hourly rate for travel.
Speaker 1Have you ever had any difficulty in getting paid and, if so, how did you go about making sure that you did get paid?
Trial Preparation and Expert Teams
Speaker 2Yes, I mean I've been at this a long time, so it has happened once or twice. I can think of at least once when, maybe more, where we actually which you don't really want to go to collections because you don't benefit from it, but you'd have to send an account to collections because you can only threaten so much, before you know you're just the expert who cried collections so, so to speak, and there's nothing else you can do to try to make your points. So that has happened generally. And the other thing that we also have in our retainer agreement, which I haven't seen elsewhere, is because we may have multiple cases from a firm. We say if your account is in arrears, say more than 60 days or whatever it is, um, we're going to stop work on any case from your firm. Your account has to be current, we're not going to, and if it's not current, we're not going to go to trial, we're not going to do more work because we don't want to not get paid. So that that helps I I did have one case um a long time ago where he hadn't paid.
Speaker 2It was just was a workers' comp appeal and like appeals with the administrative law judge kind of thing. He hadn't paid and I'm like, yeah, I'm not going to hearing. He paid up and and I got prepaid for the hearing, like and you better pay me for the testimony before, because I don't trust you. Yeah.
Speaker 1Right, right, Reasonably so. Let's talk about preparation a little bit. So I've heard a lot of things from a lot of my guests. Some people like to meditate, Some people like to have 10 cups of coffee or no breakfast or listen to loud music. 10 cups of coffee or no breakfast or listen to loud music. Do you have any predeposition pretrial routine that you like that works for you? That?
Speaker 2gets you in the right head space, gets you in the zone. If you know your, if you know that you review your notes, your, your report, your facts, if you know your facts and you're confident in your opinion, there's really no reason to be been out of shape about it. Of course, I say that now after what, 35 years, I've never had like a superstition or anything. It's just making sure that I'm preparation. That that's the key.
Speaker 1So what's it? What? What sorts of preparation do you do you like? Obviously you need to be familiar with everything, but I mean, like the day before the trial, do you review your notes? How do you just make sure that you're ready to go into it, that you have everything that you need, that you feel comfortable and that nobody's going to shake you up on the state?
Speaker 2Yeah. So if I've been deposed before trial, I absolutely make sure I read my deposition, because you know that there's the ah gotcha. You said this in your deposition and now you're saying that. So, and often they take it completely out of context. They read half of a sentence and whatever. So I always read my own deposition, as painful as that may be. That's the only thing. Worse than being deposed is reading your own answers. Sometimes I read them and I'm like that was so brilliant. And other times I'm like, oh my God, I can't believe you said that. So I'll read my report. I'll read the opposing experts report. I'll read my own position to the things that are most central.
Speaker 1So, speaking of familiarizing yourself with the things that you've said and written, do you ever you've been doing this for a long time. You've said a lot of things. Maybe you have social media. Maybe you've been published Do a long time You've said a lot of things. Maybe you have social media, maybe you've been published. Do you ever worry that you've said something 30 years ago that you might contradict or might be taken out of context, or maybe better information became available and you changed your mind? How do you deal with those sorts of eventualities?
Speaker 2I almost feel like these questions were a setup because I have good stories for all of them. So, okay, one thing that fortunately my mentor one of the curls of wisdom he gave me when I was brand new was don't fall on your sword for anybody. In other words, don't let anybody push you to go beyond what is reasonable. And I have had a relatively conservative approach, no matter which side I'm on, and that has really benefited me. So here's my story Again.
Speaker 2It seems like they're all fishing cases and I haven't done fishing cases now for about 15 years, but it was a Maricon case, it was in federal court, it was a bench trial and I was a plaintiff's expert and defense counsel who I'm familiar with with said to me Ms Cohen, isn't it true? In another matter similar to this, you testified that the best measure of pre-injury earning capacity is demonstrated earnings. And I just looked at him and I said no, that is not true. And he moved off of it because what I know I had said is one of the best measures. I never would categorically say that because I don't believe it, and he knew I didn't say it, but he figures I would think I said it because I almost said it, and that was it. I mean, he tried to get me like, oh ah, you're saying this now, but you said that then. But I'm like, yeah, no, I didn't say that then, so move on well played but they, you know that's an important piece.
Speaker 2I mean really, whatever you say they can, they can get and consistent. I I see other experts that go to the extreme on both ends and I honestly don't understand how they get away with it, but I'm very careful not to do that.
Speaker 1Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Let's talk a little bit about trial teams. So a lot of newer experts don't realize that there are many moving parts to larger trial teams. At times there might be not just the lead attorney, but another attorney, there might be paralegals, there might be a whole host of expert witnesses that are, you know, experts in certain fields. Um, when you are on a larger case, to the extent that you're working with the trial team, how much interaction is there between you and other experts, between you and all of the attorneys, between you and the trial team at large?
Speaker 2Oh yeah, absolutely. In fact I can't remember the names of the people They'll call me. This is Joe Schmo from this big firm. There could be three, four or five attorneys that I talk to on a case, so that's typical. As far as other experts, I'm kind of in the middle of the expert sandwich in my field. So the bottom, the first piece of bread, is the medical. So they're going to lay the foundation for my vocational opinions or a life care plan. So then I'm the filling on the sandwich and then the top piece of bread is the economist who's going to take my numbers and crunch them up and give them that one beautiful number that represents damages.
Speaker 2So there is communication between me as the billing. I talk to everybody if I need to. I only talk to the doctors if their reports do not specify some of the things that I need, if I need clarification or something along those lines. And the economists I really only talk to, and unfortunately this happens a lot when we're all up against a deadline. And they have the same deadline I do deadline and they have the same deadline I do. So I have to get my work to them so they can get theirs out. But I'm frantically trying to get there. So I would give them my numbers while I'm still actually writing the narrative report. It's like OK, here's, here's what I think you can do your report now while I do my report. So there's definitely some collaboration there.
Speaker 1So do you have? Is the report collaborative, or does each expert have their own report in their area?
Speaker 2Well, each expert has their own report but they're utilizing the reports of the other experts. So I'm building my report on the medical foundation and the economist is building their report on my report. That's how it's supposed to be. That said, some lawyers don't really get that and they have hired an economist first who does a report with basically just some assumptions that the lawyer gives them. And then they realize, yeah, I think I need a voc expert. The other side has a voc expert. Then I do my piece that considers mitigating earnings, and then the economist has to redo their report because we're not saying the same thing.
Speaker 2And by the same token, I've had cases where I'm actually rebutting an economist because, let's say, a plaintiff hires an economist and tells the economist you know, here's all the documentation for what this guy earned and he's never going to work again. Give me the loss. Well, there's no, an economist can't evaluate whether or not there's some mitigation possible or there are other earnings he would be capable of. So the defense hires me essentially to challenge that assumption that they're never going to work again, and it's like no, maybe they can't do X, but they can do Y and Z and this is what those jobs pay. So those are just some examples of the interplay between the experts.
Speaker 1Do you ever find yourself across the table from an expert that you personally know, somebody who does what you do but is working for the other side, and if so, what's that dynamic like?
Building Positive Attorney Relationships
Speaker 2All the time. Well, I mean, I don't actually see them. We're not generally in court at the same time, but it's a very especially locally right. It's a pretty small pond that we're swimming in and we all know each other and I, yeah.
Speaker 1Does that cause any difficulties? Or are you able to use that information, say, hey, I know this person. These are the sorts of things they're going to bring up. Maybe our trial strategy should be X, y or Z, because we're going against this person. Are you able to use that to your advantage, elle?
Speaker 2Well, I guess I could say that I pretty well don't even need to read the reports before I know what it says. I mean, that's certain, and a lot of them. On the other hand, I'll give you a different perspective. I got you know. There's this thing where if one side lists a vocational expert, the other side immediately thinks they have to hire one. So I was called on a divorce case because the other party had hired a particular vocational counselor, vocational expert for the case. And I said, well, who did they hire? And she told me and I said, you know, maybe you don't want to hire me until you read his report, because he's pretty reasonable and you might not disagree. In a divorce case it's a little different. You know, it's like, okay, they haven't worked the next number of years, what's it going to take to get them back into the job market? You might actually agree with his opinion. So, before you go and pay me a number of dollars, maybe you want to wait, because I know him and I know he's pretty reasonable.
Speaker 1Is that one of the primary means in which you get work? Do you get a lot of referrals from other people in your field?
Speaker 2No, I mean he, that I didn't get the referral from him. I got it from the attorney representing the person on the other side of the divorce. Sure, sure, sure, yeah. But what I have had is, of course, which is the big compliment is when people call me and say, yeah, I represented the opposing party on the such and such matter and I even discussed with your testimonies. I'm like, all right, cool.
Speaker 1Yeah, every expert witness loves that. Let's move to some of the more general. What makes in general, for a positive attorney expert relationship? How do you get started off on the right foot?
Speaker 2Well, a couple of things I think are really critical Timeliness, don't ever be late. Brutal honesty. So a lawyer hires you to look at a particular aspect of their case because you're the expert and they're not hiring you to tell them what you know, they want to hear and I see this all the time where you know they want you to say there's big damages and blah, blah, blah. So you kind of massage the facts to fit that narrative. They really do appreciate when you call them up. In fact, I have one right now and right now where we did a little Zoom the other day, I'm like you might not want to call me in this case. I think you just want to use the Economist because I can't help you. She is making the most money she can make. It's an employment case and the question is did she make a reasonable effort to mitigate blah, blah, blah? Yeah, she did. She didn't apply for another job, it was a demotion, but in her demoted job she's making more than she could make anywhere else. I mean, part of the reason that is is because it's a city of Seattle case and doing that same job for a smaller municipality is going to pay significantly less, even if she did a higher level job. It's still going to pay less. So I'm like I have nothing to say. She didn't quit, she's still working, she's making the most she can. I don't know what you want from me. So she said I talked to one of the attorneys and she says well, I'll talk to my team. I talked to one of the attorneys and she says, well, I'll talk to my team and we'll see what we want to do. So but they appreciate that they, they want it.
Speaker 2Or I like the case where the guy calls this is another one where lawyers just don't get it. Like there's a horrible accident, right, the person gets really injured like they broke every bone. They're in the hospital forever, but guess what? They recover and they do really well and they go back to work and they are making the exact same amount they made before they were hurt. And the lawyer doesn't understand how I can't find any loss, because it was such a bad accident. I thought they're making the same amount of money. So the only loss you have is the period of time they were out of work after the accident. Anyway, so back to my answer. Brutal honesty is a good foundation for a relationship.
Connecting with Juries and Court Venues
Speaker 1What's important about expert witnesses, why are expert witnesses important to jurisprudence, and what do you find meaningful and fulfilling about being an expert witness?
Speaker 2Well, if you didn't have an expert witness to explain some of the concepts that come up in these cases? It's essentially a debate between two sides that are very skilled at debating, at debating, trying to persuade this jury that does not have the foundation or the knowledge to make a decision. Now, even with experts, you've got two different experts, so it isn't all that different, with the exception that I believe, at least in my case, the expert's role is to clarify those issues for the jury. I feel like my role is an educator, not a persuader, and I think that's important.
Speaker 1How do you go about connecting with juries or even the judge, if the judge is the fact finder or an arbiter, how do you go about making a personal connection with the finder of fact? How do you utilize demeanor?
Speaker 2Yeah, good question. And two things. When you use the word demeanor, this is also something that I learned you know you're not always conscious of how you're portraying yourself and how you're interacting. So one thing I learned is to be really conscious of displaying the same demeanor on cross-examination that you do on direct, that you don't just like put up a big defense, okay, you're on cross now and you're going to have a different approach. That's not good. So I really try to just treat the questions coming from both sides in the same way, and I've listened to some of the other podcasts through this group and I've heard varying answers to this question.
Speaker 2I was listening to one yelling at my computer no, no, that's not right. It was somebody who said I remember this. He said oh no, I don't look at the jury, I'm just answering the questions to the lawyer and I'm completely opposite. For me, it's all about the jury. The guy who's asking me the questions knows the answers. I don't need to convince him of anything. It's the jury.
Speaker 2So I look at them. I try to see if they're shaking their heads, if they're sleeping, are they engaged? Is there something I need to do to wake them up? That's really important and I don't know about other states, but in Washington state they have juror questions. So, after direct and cross or redirect and recross, the jurors write down their questions and they're picked up and they do a little sidebar and they review them the judge and both attorneys they determine which ones they are allowed to ask and the judge reads them and I answer them, of course directing towards the jury, directing towards the jury and that's. I love that, because you get to see what they're thinking and what you maybe could have clarified better. And often their questions give you an opportunity to expand on some of the issues that you weren't asked the right question during your regular testimony. That's really important, a really important aspect of the case, that you get to answer the jury question. So, yeah, I'm all eyes on the jury.
Speaker 1What are some of the venues that you've worked in? You've worked in state, you've worked in federal, you've worked, maybe, in mediation a little bit. What are some of the differences?
Speaker 2Yes, so federal court is. I don't. I want to say stricter about you have to disclose every opinion that you're going to testify to. You can't deviate. And I don't know what the rule is in state court, but it seems like you can kind of ramble on a little bit. But in federal court if you did not put it in your report and disclose that opinion, you cannot testify to it.
Speaker 2And without getting carried away here, I had one case where, like all the facts changed between the time of my report and the deposition. I mean, everything was different and I wasn't able to discuss what was really happening. I had to like pretend that it was back one thing. So it was very weird. So that's something you need to understand. You need to understand that you have to stick to the script, so to speak, in federal court, then different state courts. So I testified in Oregon a lot and they don't have discovery at all. So when I don't know how they do it now that we keep everything electronically because this was again before we had everything on computers. But I brought my file to the courtroom, my physical file. They had the jury leave at one point. Opposing counsel just stood there and leafed through my file that was discovery, and then he asked questions. I mean that's weird. So yeah, you know you kind of want to be prepared for that.
Speaker 1Absolutely, absolutely. How interesting Before we wrap up, do you have any last advice for expert witnesses or attorneys working with experts?
Speaker 2Don't let anybody push you to opine on something that you're really not qualified to opine on. That will just get you and everybody else in trouble. You're not doing anybody any favors. Be reasonable. And to attorneys I would say talk to your expert before you send them a case. Make sure that you are enlisting the assistance of the appropriate expert and the expert can help you before you go in hook line and sinker. So they're small pieces of advice, but yeah.
Speaker 1Absolutely sage advice. Ms Cohen, thank you so much for joining me here today.
Speaker 2Well, thank you, this was fun.
Speaker 1And, as always, thank you to our listeners for joining us for another edition of Engaging Experts Cheers. Thank you for listening to our podcast, engaging Experts. Our show notes are available on our website, roundhumorgroupcom.