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 Media Expert, Howard Homonoff
Media standoffs don’t start in a courtroom—they start at the negotiating table where content owners and distributors wrestle over price, reach, and leverage. We invited Howard Homonoff, senior advisor in media and entertainment, longtime dealmaker, Forbes columnist, and adjunct professor—to unpack how those high-stakes negotiations evolve into legal disputes and what great expert work actually looks like when the lights come on.
Howard traces his path across both sides of the aisle, from acquiring channels for operators to defending brands at networks, and explains why that “Switzerland” perspective is gold when neutrality matters. We get specific about vetting: how attorneys assess fit and performance, how experts run conflict checks that catch hidden ties, and how a deep public record—columns, talks, interviews—can build credibility while also arming cross-examiners. He shares a simple rule for depositions that saves careers: answer the question and stop.
If you care about media law, distribution strategy, expert testimony, or arbitration, this conversation delivers practical playbooks and hard-won lessons. Enjoy the episode, share it with a colleague, and if it helped you think sharper about expert work, tap follow and leave a quick review—we read every one.
This episode is brought to you by Roundtable Grip, the experts on experts. We've been connecting attorneys with experts for over 30 years. Find out more at RoundtableGrip.com.
SPEAKER_01:Welcome to Engaging Experts. I'm your host, Noah Ballmer, and today I'm excited to welcome Howard Homanoff to the show. Now, Mr. Homanoff is the senior advisor for media and the entertainment industry at Grant Thornton LLC, a leading global accounting and advisory firm. Additionally, he's a columnist for Forbes.com and an adjunct professor of media deal making at Fordham. Mr. Homanoff holds a JD from NYU. Mr. Homanoff, thank you so much for joining me here today on Engaging Experts. Happy to be here. Thank you. Let's jump into it. So you have an extensive background in media and in law. Tell me how you first became involved in expert witnessing.
SPEAKER_02:Oh, I think it, you know, one of the areas that uh in my career that um, you know, where I have been so involved in as a lawyer and then as sort of business development executive was around the uh the distribution, uh, sort of production, distribution, and monetization of content. Video primarily, um, you know, at one time that was uh primarily delivered via cable television, and then over time, obviously streaming platforms, et cetera. Um, but it was those negotiations that I had been a part of both on both sides, honestly, at different times of my career, uh as a working as a cable operator where our job was to acquire the content from a whole variety of media companies and then deliver that to our subscribers. And then on the flip side, during my years at NVC as the general counsel for the cable networks, um, and then kind of running strategy and business development for some of the emerging digital businesses. It was about how do we take the content and brands that we own and distribute them on uh traditional kind of multi-channel video platforms, and then later on things like streaming video and satellite, taking the audio and on satellite radio, et cetera. So it was that process that I've been very immersed in for years on kind of what is, you know, what are the customs and practices and sort of reasonable act, you know, actions in a sense around that world of of uh uh of how people interact in that distribution of content. And um, and having been a part of that, I know they are often, and you see the ones that become public, and when XYZ platform says, well, we're gonna pull this service, or the or or the the the network says, we're gonna pull our servers from that platform. And those are tends to be, you know, but there are even those less public ones, they're all difficult and they're all complicated, and everybody has very strong points of view about who's right and who's wrong and and how it should go. And so it's inevitable that uh that some of those disputes become legal proceedings and uh become whether it is in a court or before a uh, you know, it might be a mediator or it might be before a regulatory body. But that was really how I got into it initially in uh in one of those disputes. Um, and in in most of the cases, it seems, not always, but it seems does most of the cases on behalf of the content owner uh that is uh arguing that they're being fair and the other side isn't uh to to boil it down.
SPEAKER_01:Tell me a little bit about the vetting process in your industry. So you receive a phone call from an attorney or the representative of an attorney saying, hey, this is these are the facts of the case, more or less. They don't always reveal everything. Yeah. How do you decide that this is a case that A, you're qualified for, but B, that you actually want to take? And then the flip side of that coin, as somebody all who has a JD, how is the lawyer vetting that expert witness to see if not only they're an expert, but somebody who's going to perform well in front of the finder effect?
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, I think that you know it's interesting. Uh, in terms of the how they'll perform, I I during times of my career, I actually uh uh for it for a time, I had a local access cable show called Media Reporter, in which, and and so if you wanted to, and if you you dug hard enough, you could find the back, you know, the the the back catalog of some of those industry interviews that I did and sometimes speaking arrangements. So as as the internet you know developed and became YouTube became more robust, et cetera, some of that back, you know, uh backstory was online and available to people to see uh how I talked about, and everything I did was always about talking about the industry, whether I was making a presentation or simply engaging with people who were executives in the business and talking about their business. Um, I think that uh it's when people are reaching out, one of the things that has distinguished me in over the years is that I am uh both, I think in perception and reality, a bit of a Switzerland. So it's difficult when there's a dispute, uh, you're not going to be able to hire somebody to be your expert who is on uh who has a full-time job inside of a media company, inside of a studio, or inside of a cable company, or inside of a streaming platform, uh uh, because they are they they so obviously present as much as they may say otherwise, they're so obviously present those biases. So for me, having been at, you know, at different times on both sides of that uh and written about it and you know for Forbes and talked about it in a class. So, so I've I've you know been immersed in this, but not necessarily with a particular ax to grind for one side or the other. So I think people, you know, first of all, it's it's very much word of mouth. It is very much, oh, I came to you because either maybe somebody knows me directly and had been a client or we had worked together, or um the the the law firm may have worked with me in a prior case, or somebody they know who had been at that firm and now is in-house or something like that recommended me. So there's there's a bit of that kind of you know, the the network uh six degrees of separation thing that goes on, uh, I think in this is I suspect in in so many other places. Uh and then I think I uh, you know, pretty good at passing the does this guy know about our business test? Uh good at the can be can he can he be and is he in fact kind of objective about the business and and is going to look at this case sort of on its own. Uh and you know, you go through a conflict check, um, which is when I've been with big firms, that's a lot harder than if I maybe have had my own practice, uh, certainly, but uh, but you know, that's a simple, um, sometimes simple, sometimes more complicated, but but a test of um if you're representing this side, is there somebody is there some tie to the other side, either in the past or currently, let's say, with an I mean, I once got bounced or denied from a case because uh the there was a like a private equity firm that had an investment on the other side. They were not going to be at all part of the case, they were a minority private invec equity investor, but they were a client of the tax department at PWC when I was there. So although I never met any of the people involved in any of these areas, that was enough when you ran it through the system to say, nope, he, you know, he can't be that's a conflict from what was then a PWC perspective. So you run through uh those um those checks as well. Um, and then I think the more I learn, I need to learn enough about the case to make sure that my point of view is going to line up with the people that want to hire me. And so, you know, at the end of the day, you you you can't know all of that until you've kind of gotten further into your work, but at least preliminarily, when you've got the facts and and the relative positions described to you, are you comfortable being on the side that wants to hire you?
SPEAKER_01:To that end, do you find yourself working on both the plaintiff and the defendant side so that there's no chance that somebody's going to perceive you or try and impeach you as some sort of hired gun?
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, I I I I think that uh I have worked on both sides over the years, and you know, and there were some that uh I think they tend to be large entities that are going to hire me because the case has to be worth a lot of money to spend a lot of money on experts. And so that you know will tend to involve bigger entities. But I think that uh, you know, again, sort of that body of work that I've worked on both in my career as an executive inside of a cable operator, distributor of content, as well as uh as well as inside of a company making content. And so that professional that professional background on both sides, and then teaching and writing, which if you read what I would you know, read the you know many, many published pieces in Forbes, which tell you that I'm I'm gonna call it as I see it, and uh, you know, some I've come down on different sides depending on you know who I think is right or is let's say acting smartly, you know, in a particular circumstance.
SPEAKER_01:So you are a if I if I if memory serves a weekly column, miss, is that correct? Yes. More or less. So as a as somebody who has a lot out there in a in a quite a big forum, Forbes isn't small. Is this something where you have to keep track of everything you've ever said in the history of your writing so as not to be a beast or or or contradict yourself?
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, well, uh Forbes is very good, but literally everything I've ever created for Forbes is it is available. They keep it publicly available. So I do recall a case, you know, now, and that keeps getting bigger. So, you know, there was an there's always an associate assigned. It depends the degree to which the the frankly the law firm wants to invest in this, not as a vetting exercise, but as a um sort of making sure that there's no nothing out there that's gonna trip me up or that you know in a deposition, or that I'll be saying something contrary to what and and I may say things contrary to what I said 10 years ago, but not because uh I'm uh I'm you know just changing my mind for the case because 10 years ago, I think we all know the media world was a pretty different one than the one we sit in today, and it's possible I I may have thought something was a good idea then that quite clearly isn't now, or vice, or vice versa. But but there have been associates who've had the pleasure, I hope, of having to read everything I've written for the last 10 years uh on an almost weekly basis in Forbes. So there's a lot. I suspect that's probably a job now that AI will take on, at least in you know, in a summary fashion. And so the associate will then go to the the summaries and and you know, and kind of work at it from there. But that's a you know, it's a time-consuming task.
SPEAKER_01:Absolutely. Is are there ways that attorneys should be preparing experts for those sorts of eventualities? You know, the facts of this case run a little bit uh askew of something that you once said in the past, and this is how we're gonna handle it, and this is how you should answer those questions. Is that something that you are normally advised on or prepared for or or can it hit you or can it blindside you a little bit?
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, well, if at the attorney is I try myself to be um not that I go back and read all 10 years or something, but there are certain things, you know, that that let's say over the last two years, because it's a going to be a current dispute, and I've written about and I've said to the attorneys, said, for example, you know, because sometimes I you don't know how this will cut. Well, I've said something in this area which actually helped is aligned with us, but I don't want that to be perceived as, well, see, he was biased, uh and or something like that, that he came in with a, you know, that that he's not looking at this case, he just he's biased in this direction. And usually the the view is as long as it's an odd your honest opinion, we're hiring you to provide your honest opinion. And so that's that's fine. If it's if it is um, it's rare that I will have had a long, strong held point of view that's counter to what I'm now going to be saying in, you know, in in court again. Things evolve, but um, but uh I'll I'll rarely be well, all of a sudden I've taken a 180 um because I'm getting a check. So that but but it is but it is the lawyers too that should be on. I'm looking at them too to tell me if you've read something that you have a question about or or it seems to not be somehow consistent, um uh or you think is at all problematic. Let's talk about it. And but I I've never been in a case where, oh, that article six years ago on X, I'm sorry, now we you know that we we can't we can't deal with that or something. So um it's it's usually a much more uh much more shaded analysis than that.
SPEAKER_01:Earlier when we were talking about the vetting process, you mentioned arbitration or other types of alternative dispute resolution, and that is something that experts do engage in. How is it different? How is a how is ABR as an expert witness, um, and in any respect from the engagement, from the contract, from actually performing as an expert? What are the differences between being in say an arbitration versus a standard trial?
SPEAKER_02:Well it depends a bit on, you know, I suppose that's the like the classic lawyer's response. It depends. Uh, but but you know, there have been arbitrations that I've been a part of in which uh there in all but the sort of technical legal sense, they seem like a trial. And uh, you know, there are witnesses, you've been deposed in advance, and then you're also um by the lawyers, and then you testify, you know, quote, in court um before, quote, the judge, but it's you know, it's an arbitrator, and uh they are probably a they may be a retired judge, they may be a an attorney. Um they are not generally someone who has any background in the industry, so it's more of their background as as a um um, you know, as as someone who has arbitrated cases and knows the procedure and you know that level of comfort. Um, but it is, and but I think in those, you know, the the the work that you do, and again, it depends. Sometimes you most cases I get hired, I'm probably writing a report and then being deposed. Um, but that depends a bit on the procedures involved. And frankly, it depends on on uh the money that's at stake, too, and how much the sides are are probably willing to spend on uh what can be uh of you know, just because it's arbitration doesn't mean it's not going to be lengthy or expensive in terms of its process.
SPEAKER_01:Sure, and a lot of people don't realize that they think arbitration happens overnight and it can't be.
SPEAKER_02:Right, everybody sits around a table and sort of works it out or something, and you know, uh, and that certainly hasn't been my experience.
SPEAKER_01:Well, let's talk about formality a little bit in demeanor. Is there any qualitative difference in demeanor or the kind of overall just kind of vibe of it compared to a jury trial?
SPEAKER_02:I think it does feel less um it it is less formal, certainly so when the when there is no jury and it's just a judge, you know, a bench trial uh in court versus an arbitrator. Um the uh the work before actually, I think sort of writing the report deposition doesn't look very different at all, really. It's more just at that at that stage, um, you know, it uh it becomes a more uh a bit less uh the the rules become a you know it's a little you know a little more flexible again in the arbitration realm than it is on a certainly a federal court um level. Um and you know the FCC has I have been an expert before the FCC and um and and there you you may have some you may have an arbitrator who does actually know the industry have some more direct industry experience, uh but it you know it is and again less formal than probably again in a federal court, but you're sworn in, you've got lawyers sitting at the tables and and uh you know you're sitting in a box or you know uh something like that, a platform. And so um it it can be pretty it can be pretty formal.
SPEAKER_01:Sure, absolutely. Let's talk a little bit about billing and contracts, and so you've accepted your engagement, you've decided that you're on the same page, you're the right expert for the job, you've vetted each other. What sorts of special terms do you like to use? Do you have a non-refundable retainer? Do you like hourly rates? Do you like uh project rates? Tell me a little bit about your billing structure. Obviously, we don't need the details on the actual numbers, but just structurally.
SPEAKER_02:I think structurally, uh I will always ask to have um uh an upfront retainer. Um early on, maybe when I had done this, I had a bad experience, honestly, with not being paid anything upfront and having a law firm uh that I later had to sue uh because uh they, you know, I I did I did work, and then they basically can more or less change their mind about whether they wanted an expert or not or not, and which they're perfectly entitled to do. You you pay me for my time and I'll move on. There's no there's no guarantee of what you're going to do, or you know, but um but and that was circumstance where so I wasn't paid anything, and you know, the pressure was all on me to go chase down the money. And so, you know, uh as a sort of incentive to make sure that there's the the other party has call its skin in the game, um, there's there's an upfront payment. It's not sure I don't, I don't, I don't make it non-refundable in a sense that if they did, you know, the next day, again, I've never had this circumstance, say, you know what, it turns out or the case settles. We we you know, here's we paid you your retainer, and two days later the case settles. Okay, I'll bill you for the hour I spent, and you know, I mean, I I I'll I'll keep that and and return the the remainder to you, or what whatever it may be. But so it's against whatever the the ultimate monies owed is is the way I you know the way I've operated it. Um and um I will sometimes, you know, I I think in almost every circumstance, um I have I've I do it hourly. Um sometimes people will ask for an estimate of what they where they think you're going to come out. And uh tricky, right? It's really hard to do that. It's really hard to do that. And and I won't, I wouldn't commit myself in any contractual sense to to to it to a ceiling. Um I I would simply say, look, that's that's where I, you know, maybe before they've hired me, I'll say, look, this is, you know, or you can kind of do the math. Here's the hourly rate. So here's what I think. If you're asking me for a report and then, you know, a deposition, uh this is the the ballpark of where I think it might come out. Uh and it might be close and it might be way off. Um, but it may be something completely out of my control, the other side, you know, that there are many, many more lawyers involved than I had thought, which obviously raises the overall amount of time and cost of the litigation. Um, so I'm gonna I'll look at that. And then and then there are things of uh uh, you know, there might be a slight premium for in-court testimony. Uh there there uh there is a uh you know, the question about travel, and uh uh you know, at times have had to that doesn't, you know, if you if you have to travel, you have to travel and you get reimbursed, but just making sure there's sort of a process around that. Sure. And if there's some sometimes people have a different process for reimbursement of expenses than they do for the billing of of time. So, you know, those are kind of mechanical, but you just need to know what that is and and make sure that you're oh no, you have to send that bill to to this P and this goes to the insurance company. Oh, okay, you know, uh whatever it is, you know, you comply with, but you have to know that. Don't don't you know don't be in a position where you know people say, Oh, I don't, I don't, I don't have anything to do with this billy thing.
SPEAKER_01:Um, so you don't want to be in that situation. Let's talk a little bit about preparation. So it's a big day, you're going into a potentially l endless uh deposition or you're going into cross-examination. How do you like to get ready? Well, I think I, you know, I'm gonna reread my report.
SPEAKER_02:If there is um uh if there are a couple of other key expert reports on either side that I know are, let's say, the the the expert that they've hired that's diametrically opposed to me, and I will probably reread that. There might be uh I'm not an economist, so I will be oftentimes I'm the industry expert to really talk about how things work in the real world and how negotiations take place and why certain things that might not make sense logically to you take place in this industry, et cetera. And then there's an economist who will run a you know uh what looks like you know the regression analyses, et cetera. Um, and as a we're we're kind of complimenting each other, but and there may be a need for me to refamiliarize myself with some of what the economist is talking about. We're generally the areas are different, but it it helps me to feel at least a better understanding for where they're they're coming from and and questions that may come up about that. Um the I'm I probably drink too much coffee in my life. Uh it's not just limited to expert witness testimony, so I'll I'll cop to that uh vice. Um, but uh the coffee is pretty well free-flowing and and water also obviously uh nearby at all times.
SPEAKER_01:Uh hydration is key. So yeah. Uh so you you mentioned economists. That that's a great segue to uh trial teams. You know, it's not just you and the attorney. Sometimes there are a dozen expert witnesses, sometimes there's a few who might even be in your field, alternate fields, paralegals, administrative persons. How much or to what extent do you interact with other members of the trial team?
SPEAKER_02:Sometimes there so sometimes, and it really it's you know, we'll take my cue, of course, from the lawyers and what they need, they may think I that their economist needs to hear from me uh in terms of some of the real world applications of of what you know how things work in the business. And so we'll have sort of that interaction. There's not much where, hey, you know, you need a better understanding of regression analyses, so we're gonna do a a session on you know on that with you. No, that's doesn't happen too much, but but uh it it may be, or they they the economists may simply uh on their own, they're all if you know the lawyer gives them the gives gives them the okay, may pick, may, you know, reach out and say, hey, can I grab you for 20 minutes to ask you about X? So there's some of that. Sometimes there are, I'm never a fact witness, I'm a I'm an industry expert, but there may be fact witnesses that are important for me to talk to and to get a feel for at least it's their perspective, of course, but but what why certain things were done or why they you know this negotiation happened the way it did, or why this value, this this decision was made, or whatever it may be. So there's some some of that uh that goes on. And um, and then the and and and so the uh and the team of of lawyers is gonna vary. So some sometimes the partner or partners are very hands-on. Sometimes it's you're almost dealing with the associate, lead associate almost the entire time until the very end, and the partner, like the dentist, after you've had the hygienist do all the work, comes in and says, Looks good. Yeah. Um, so sometimes sometimes you have that too.
SPEAKER_01:Sure, have you been uh engaged in different venues, local, state, federal, across state lines, other countries, anything like that? And if so, what are some of the things that you have to think about or be aware of as an expert witness? Do you need to understand any particular laws or any rules of the courtroom? You know, how do you go into a new venue?
SPEAKER_02:I think that I'm I'm usually going to look to the lawyers um who practice there to give me that instruction. Um, sometimes I'll get some advice around the uh the arbiter, the arbitrator, or the judge, and they'll say, look, here's here's what he will like. He doesn't like to get into too much on XYZ. He's he really folk, this is the way, and you'll get questions from him, and he'll chime in and he'll say, and so it'll be the peculiarities uh uh uh were unique elements of the court, um or the you know the individual even more than the than the venue. Um I think that whether it is um, and you know, I have had proceedings before the copyright royalty board, which is so multi, um, you know, multiple members uh that are listening to my testimony at the same time, and all of which can in that case can can ask a question. And other times it's you know, it's just it's a judge or it's uh an uh it's it's an arbitrator that you know that may ask the questions, or it may never get to that stage, and it's just a deposition, and it's just an extremely hostile attorney on the other side who's asking me questions. But again, there too, that it may be just um the my are my lawyer giving me a sense of, hey, we've been through a whole bunch of depositions with this, this is what you're likely to get. And when that happens, don't get thrown, or you know, that type of advice.
SPEAKER_01:Do you find yourself needing to take a proactive approach and ask the attorneys these questions, or are they pretty good at preparing you with the I think most are most are pretty good at that.
SPEAKER_02:And they're you know, and and they're if they're experienced litigators, um, and they're always are going to be at the case at this level, somebody, you know, seniors, somebody's senior that uh that have been through this, and and so they'll they'll take you through that. If I feel like I haven't heard everything I need to hear, I certainly will ask. Um, but uh, but they're usually pretty good about um uh about having the sense of what they want their expert uh how what they what he needs to know.
SPEAKER_01:Moving to the general, what are the factors that make for a quality, efficient, effective relationship between the expert witness and the attorney? How do you get off on the right foot and how do you maintain that momentum going through the entire engagement?
SPEAKER_02:I think I I um first I never will provide a deadline that I'm not gonna hit. I will never say you're gonna get this by X and then not deliberate. So um sometimes a lawyer may give me an unreasonable one or what I what sounds like unreasonable, but mostly, frankly, if they do, it's because I came into the case late and uh which has off happened in many cases, where you know, sorry, but we actually Need this report in 10 days. And you go, okay, that's part of the reason that you've gone to somebody who really knows the industry. I get it. I mean, it sounds pretty crazy, but I get it. And so I I think really um it sounds cliche, but I think just open, honest communication is most critical. And and I'm not going to be, you know, if I'm off on the you know wrong path, and it's not, you know, it's not about, oh, you're wrong, you have to change your report. It is about, boy, this judge really needs to hear a lot of detail about the industry because they really know nothing. And so you've really got the stuff that you think everybody knows, not everybody knows. So, so you know, beef that up or something like that. So, but um, so I think it's it's it's having you know a lot of communication, uh, setting um reasonable deadlines and expectations, um and working out if there are resources that they have that can be helpful to you. And, you know, we're now you know, um, I mean, when I began this, um, I think I I mean the internet was always there. I don't go that far back, but but it was less, less, as less helpful. And certainly there wasn't the AI, you know, tool that you have now. But, you know, do you need someone to research um to you know uh a whole bunch of, you know, go way deep on something, um, uh, or to pull up a bunch of Nielsen reports, you know, that um that will save you a lot of time. And my argument is always, I'll I'll do that. It's not like I think it's beneath me, but by the way, it's much more cost efficient for you to take one of your associates who are probably being paid, you know, less than half of what you're paying me. And and so they're they're you know, they're happy to have those opportunities to be helpful and to make things more efficient. And sometimes they may just simply say, you know what? Well, I I don't have any spare bodies. I just I'm gonna have to have you do okay, you know, but again, have an open communication about that. Try to be uh and and I always say, look, I'm I'm I'm just I'm completely here to support the case, the argument. And so, you know, it doesn't matter if I do something and then you don't use it. It doesn't matter if I say something and whatever you, you know, um it it's in support of the case. And you I only know what I'm doing and what I think about what you're asking me. I have no idea about, you know, fact witness 18 and you know the the the the booby trap that that that is and you know to how that might relate to just not saying, not focusing on a certain thing or focusing a lot on something else.
SPEAKER_01:And of course, the flip side of that coin is are there any red flags that you look for that, oh boy, this is a you know, I I better either not accept this engagement if it's at the beginning, or you know, change tax and and you know, try and write the ship a little bit. What are the things that can happen that can set an engagement off kilter?
SPEAKER_02:I think if you don't, if you feel like you're not getting enough information from the lawyer about the case, uh, oh, we'll tell you that later, or you know, that's not that's not that important, or something, um, that would be uh a very much a red flag. Um, because I might ask you a question. If I've asked it, uh I probably think it's important to me. And it is but it's certainly possible that it's not ultimately important to the case, but if it's important to my thinking about the case, it's probably important. So, you know, if you've got somebody saying, Oh, you know, we'll we'll get to that later, and we just want to make sure we got you on board or whatever, um, I I that that would be a red flag for me. Um, certainly if um if if you're seeing work that is um not you know not up to what you think is as you know uh acceptable or you know um uh well done standard, uh that's another that's that's another one. Yeah, and I'm sure I'm usually working with it's big law firms, so it's they're they're pretty professional, they're they're pretty buttoned up about these things. Um if things are taking too long and and even bringing you on board sometimes, that might be a red flag of like, are you really you do you really need an expert? Are you just sort of, well, let's get this guy. If we ever need him, we'll call him. But what I okay, that's different than, you know, if I'm gonna be needed on October 18th to be, you know, at X, then you're just gonna, I'm not, you know, you can't tell me on October 17th. It turns out we actually do need you. So, you know, though those sorts of things.
SPEAKER_01:Before we wrap up, do you have any last advice for expert witnesses or attorneys working with experts? I guess I would say that uh two things come to mind.
SPEAKER_02:One, which is, and I, you know, come to realize how little you should really say uh when you're being deposed, uh, unless you need to. That, you know, you don't you the the when when you're being deposed by the other side, they're looking to poke holes at your testimony. They're looking to undermine your credibility. They're not there to help illuminate why you know so much about this case or are gonna add to it. So that that that answer the questions, but don't provide any more than is needed to answer the question than is literally the the you know the the barest minimum. So I would say that. And that's that's counter to what you think of as, oh, I'm an expert. So I'm gonna show everybody why I'm an expert. Not yeah, show your people, your side why you're an expert, not not the other, you don't need to show the other side that. Um, and then I would just say um, you know, that that especially when you when you are an expert, sometimes you you may for you might forget uh that not everybody knows the stuff that you know. And uh it's really important to tell, you know, and my writing helps me in this, I think. You're telling a story. You're not just eliciting a bunch of facts, but it is what's the story that you're telling, and how do the facts that you're telling fit into that story? Because the person listening, especially someone who doesn't really know about the industry, um, that's how we learn things. We learn things through storytelling.
SPEAKER_01:Sage advice. Mr. Homanoff, thank you so much for joining me here today. Thank you. My pleasure. And thank you, as always, to our listeners for joining us for another edition of Engaging Experts. Cheers.
SPEAKER_00:Thank you for listening to our podcast, Engaging Experts. Our show notes are available on our website, roundtable group.com.