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 Forensic Accountant, Tatevik Torossian
Money leaves a trail, but only a clear storyteller can make that trail persuade a jury. We sit down with forensic CPA and litigation consultant Tatevik Torossian to unpack how expert witnesses transform complex financial disputes into simple, credible narratives that hold up under fire. From early career lessons to first-chair testimony, she shares the preparation habits that matter most: reading your own depo transcript, pressure-testing schedules, and anticipating the strongest lines of attack long before cross.
Method and venue shape strategy. We break down a case where the opposing expert compared contingency-based revenue to time-and-material billings and drew the wrong conclusion—a classic apples-to-oranges error that an attentive expert can dismantle. Tatevik also contrasts Federal Rule 26 narrative reports with state court exhibit submissions, touches on family court dynamics, and shares how mediation and arbitration change the pace, cost, and outcome path. Along the way, we cover engagement timing, settlement realities, time-and-materials billing, collaborating with valuation and other specialists, and the daily coordination that keeps trial teams aligned.
If you want to improve expert witness strategy, craft stronger demonstratives, or simply make your damages story stick, this conversation delivers practical steps you can use on your next case. Subscribe, share with a colleague, and leave a review telling us your favorite tactic for making complex numbers crystal clear.
This 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 roundtablegroup.com.
SPEAKER_00:Welcome to Engaging Experts. I'm your host, Noah Ballmer, and today I'm excited to welcome Tattavik Tarosian to the show. Ms. Terosian is a director of Gropstein Teeple, LLP, a litigation consulting and forensic accounting group. Additionally, she is a forensic CPA with over 15 years of experience and a sought-after presenter. Ms. Tarosian holds a BS in accounting and business management from Cal State, Los Angeles. Ms. Tarosian, thank you so much for joining me here today on Engaging Experts.
SPEAKER_02:It's a pleasure. Thank you for having me.
SPEAKER_00:Of course, let's jump into it. So you've been a forensic accountant since at least 2009. How did you first become involved in expert witnessing?
SPEAKER_02:Yes, that is correct. Since 2009, and I would say that I always liked investigative work. I at some point considered becoming an investigative journalist. However, a friend discouraged me, uh stating that it's it's a bit risky and it may not be very a positive experience for, you know, if you want to settle later and have family. And he suggested I look into accounting. And I did so and then discovered forensics at some point, and it was a perfect match, combining numbers, which I really liked, and investigative work.
SPEAKER_00:Sure, of course. And tell me about the first time that you got called for an expert witness appointment. Were you uh looking for that? Is that something you were advertising for? Did you even know about expert witness work? How did that go down?
SPEAKER_02:I did not know about expert witness work. I did financial accounting uh during my college days when I was studying for the CPA exam. And then uh upon completing the exam in 09 is when I connected with a boutique firm in Pasadena. And all they did was forensic accounting, which was uh quite the new area for me. And when I was introduced to it, I embraced it and I have not looked back uh and I have not stopped doing that. Uh initially during those uh uh beginning years, I was supporting the partners at that boutique firm, meaning I would uh dig into the cases and analysis and reporting uh in their support of the case. I did not testify directly. However, uh throughout the years, I became more and more uh excited about testifying myself, which for the first time occurred in 2022 when I first was designated as the expert directly.
SPEAKER_00:Uh a lot of people have a lot of different uh preparation techniques when it comes to depositions and cross-examination. Some people like to, you know, cram their expert witness report the night before. Some people like to caffeinate themselves or do yoga. Do you have any pretrial or pre-deposition routine that works for you?
SPEAKER_02:Yes. I would say know your report and know your analysis. And not the 24 hours before, but the week before, the several weeks before, and hopefully counsel had retained you uh early enough to sufficiently uh dig into all the records and documents that came your way, and that you are prepared to address any of the strong points of the opposing side against you uh in particular.
SPEAKER_00:So you talk about making sure that there's sufficient time. Now, this is a mantra that I've heard from a lot of expert witnesses. Attorneys, please give us enough time. Do you typically have sufficient time to do everything that you need as thoroughly as it needs to be done in an expert witness engagement, or are there certain occasions that you wish the attorney would have engaged you a little bit earlier?
SPEAKER_02:The latter is correct. Yes. Uh more than more often than not, experts are engaged later in the process, but there are many cases where they are engaged months in advance. And in my recent trial case, uh we were engaged the year before, and it was a tremendous success for the client.
SPEAKER_00:So when you say the the year prior, did were you aware that you had that much time, or was it something that just kind of got drawn out that long?
SPEAKER_02:Good question. Uh initially they thought uh uh settlement or negotiation uh talks would go into maybe about six months at the time as of the time of the engagement, so six months after that, within six months. Uh and those negotiations failed uh when the time came. And as a result, within months of it, the trial was scheduled.
SPEAKER_00:Aaron Powell Do you find that a significant number or most of your engagements actually move towards settlement?
SPEAKER_02:Aaron Ross Powell That's the preferred, obviously, right, uh goal uh because it's just cost-effective. And in this particular case, uh the client the plaintiff, I was supporting the plaintiff side. Uh plaintiff had offered many times to settle the case, but he was the defendant that uh opposed settlement. And when all those failed and the trial commenced, uh it was all the result, the end result was all to the benefit of the plaintiff. So um the defendant really missed out on the settlement opportunity. And the same thing happened again in my last arbitration trial, and the defendant refused to settle, uh, and the arbitration was in favor of the plaintiff. So while many tried to settle, it really depends on a case, I would say. Uh but ultimately when it does go to trial, uh the side, one side prevails. You hope you're on the right side.
SPEAKER_00:Uh you know, you're right. A lot of these, uh a lot of these cases are definitely moving towards settlement. How does that affect expert witnesses? Does that take work away from you when a trial, when, when ultimately attorneys are trying to push something towards settlement because then you won't have the opportunity to do as many depositions or be in cross-examination, all that sort of stuff? And if so, is that something that you protect yourself from by adding terms to your engagement letters, such as non-refundable, non-refundable retainers and items like that? How do you protect yourself to make sure that you get paid when uh when some of these actions move towards a rapid settlement?
SPEAKER_02:Well, again, thank you for asking that. Uh, I think it's important to note that uh we bill uh on time spent, um, time and material. So uh and we bill on an ongoing monthly basis. So whatever work is performed up to the date of settlement, it's expected that the client will take care of it. Sure. Uh in other words, uh you yes, you won't incur additional billable time because depositions and trials are expensive. Uh but whatever work is done up to the point of settlement, uh, that's expected to be uh compensated. The experts expect it to be compensated. And I usually never put um any special terms and contracts about non-refundable retainers and whatnot. Uh it's usually whatever time uh has been time and material has been spent and incurred for the case we've built on a monthly basis.
SPEAKER_00:So one of the things that you mentioned was arbitration. Now, a lot of newer expert wit witnesses don't know that expert witnesses are also used in alternative dispute resolutions such as arbitrations. Tell me how these sorts of matters are different for an expert witness uh from an arbitration versus a normal trial.
SPEAKER_02:Yes. So a trial, uh the trial I was in, for example, in June uh was supposed to be five days. It ended up uh extending over a three-week period. Uh it had it was a jury trial. So that means there are 12 strangers deciding your case, and also uh 12 uh citizens that may not have any accounting background, may not have most likely they don't, and most likely they don't keep a checkbook, right? They don't reconcile their bank accounts. So those are all foreign um thoughts and ideas to most of them sitting there. Uh and no legal background either, uh, most likely. Uh so that's that's one big aspect of a jury trial. So you have a very um layman uh audience that you need to communicate your findings to. And then you have uh the arbitration where it's a judge, uh most likely a retired judge, uh that is presiding over the case, who will tend to have more knowledge and background uh in financial aspect, legal aspect, uh, likely has been exposed to more cases, has heard a lot of cases. So uh the audience is different. However, I find it that my communication remains uh similar. I will communicate as simply uh as clearly as possible. And and in my view, even if the trier of fact is the judge sitting across, uh, I would still um assume that I need to explain in in the simplest form uh possible. But yes, the main difference is the jurors versus a judge presiding.
SPEAKER_00:So, you know, assuming that everybody is a lay person, even when you have a fairly sophisticated judge, they might not know all of the intric intricacies and ins and outs of your profession. What are some of the techniques that you use to communicate some of these complex topics in a way that's more easily digestible to lay persons?
SPEAKER_02:So topics, it would come down to uh it's a dispute, right? It's a dispute about money. And many times it's uh money where it came from and where it went. And if uh it went to the wrong parties, uh how much, right? So it comes down to how we can demonstrate uh this money in the simplest form. It came the party had X amount, now they have Y, and therefore they're entitled to the difference. Uh and all or in my trial case, it was heavily based on a bank statement analysis. Uh and it really ultimately the juror, the jurors really relied on that fact that uh everything was documented in the bank statements. So there was no lying as to what happened because it was traced all to bank statement versus opposing counsel uh chose to reinstate historical invoices without consideration, for example, uh for bank transactions. So one is an internally created document, uh, the other one is an external um third-party document, and you have to decide which one is more reliable. So yeah, choosing most reliable uh source information and presenting it.
SPEAKER_00:Have you used demonstratives in your field? In other words, charts, graphs, pictures, videos, things like that?
SPEAKER_02:Yes. Uh in the trial for the jurors, especially, it was extremely helpful to use a very simple demonstrative where it showed$100 was deposited,$50 went out,$50 was left. It would it should have been split uh in two parts for the two between the two partners, but it was not. Uh so it was it over 3,000 transactions uh and many, many disbursements that occurred, but we condensed it to one line item and condensed the deposits into one line item. Don't even break it down by year, just the total in the claim period and the total that went out, just one number came in, one number went out, and what remained, that's the number they wrote down. Yeah. And and you know, if you have components like adding interest or adding unpaid costs, again, it's just the one number. It's three percent on that. So they know exactly what they're looking at and what that number represents.
SPEAKER_00:Is this something that you tend to produce yourself, or does your firm make these, or do you use third parties to create demonstratives?
SPEAKER_02:Usually for complex cases, third parties. Uh in this particular case, the the legal team actually did an amazing job. They had an internal team that was assisting with the demonstratives, and they were really uh helpful and resourceful. Yes.
SPEAKER_00:How does how does that process work? Tell me a little bit about uh, you know, the the types of communication. I'm really interested in these demonstratives and how they're produced and how a picture can be worth a thousand words, and lay jurors can understand when they see the the best demonstrative. So tell me a little bit about how you communicate to the party that creates them.
SPEAKER_02:Yes. So I finalize my report, uh, right. So my analysis, uh, which would have schedules, it would have a summary schedule of my opinions. It would have then the subschedules with the support. So all of that information gets submitted before a deposition and also before trial. So if you have any revisions between your deposition uh and trial, you resubmit, which you should do most certainly if additional information becomes available and you need to correct the opinion. It's very uh important to present the most accurate testimony possible on the trial date. And so once my report is submitted, then the team that works on the demonstratives has access to that information. And they typically work off of my summary schedule. Yes, so they pick the information off of my summary schedule usually and um make demonstratives. They will use uh icons many times. If it's a um transfer that went into some personal type of an expense, there might be an icon just representing that visually, you know, hotel image or some sort of something that would stand out, right? Uh the dollar design living. So uh, but ultimately it's really it's not about presenting multiple lines on the screen, but it's just condensing it to two to three items that they can actually visualize. And most jurors were taking note, so that was impressive.
SPEAKER_00:A lot of the time on the other side, they're trying to impeach your credibility, they're trying to impeach, you know, uh what you're saying in respect to the facts of the case and maybe even your demonstratives. How do you deal with the other side uh, you know, throwing a few left hooks at you and saying, oh, this person doesn't know what they're talking about? What what types of strategies do you use to to uh deflect that and to prevent it from happening in the first place?
SPEAKER_02:It surely happened. Uh and number one would be know their strong point, uh, the opposing side, and be prepared to address them. And one way to really know, for example, uh I read my own deposition transcripts leading up to the trial several times. I read several times, in fact, three times, and I noted that one number was different in my Excel that I was looking at live than what I had testified to in my deposition. It wasn't a material number because it was not actually the damages figure that I was calculating, but it was a comparable number. And when I noted, I I realized that uh in later pretrial exhibit submission, somehow my Excel links had changed and I had not caught it. So I was ready to address that point if it cut came up in my cross-examination. And it did. They brought it up, even though it it was not uh something that it was not actually the damages figure, it was really irrelevant. But they brought it up and they said, well, this changed, you testified this, and now in this uh trial exhibit, it shows it's it's$300,000 off. What happened? And I, you know, and I was ready for it. So I said it must have been a math error. Uh I did not intend for it to change. Something happened with Excel, but the important point is that it does not affect my opinions in any way.
SPEAKER_00:So getting out in front of it and being ready for it is your advice. Yeah, that's great advice, especially when it was an immaterial error. Uh, you know, which can happen when we're using all these sorts of software. Let's back up a little bit and talk about a few of the more um a few of the more general areas of expert witnessing. What do you find important about being an expert witness? Or put another way, why are expert witnesses important to have?
SPEAKER_02:I think they make or break the case uh because they tell the story, and the story is substantiated as a result of their experience. So being the expert, also you have this ability and skill set to be creative and understand uh how damages can be quantified in a case that may not be so obvious, which really happened in my arbitration case. And uh it was one accounting method uh that was compared to a post-incident accounting method by the opposing expert. And it should not have been because the two accounting methods were practiced by two different entities, meaning, you know, one entity could bill on contingency fee basis, where the other entity was actually by law forbidden uh from billing on contingency basis. It had to be time and material. Yet the opposing expert compared the revenues and assumed the decline in post-incident revenues or billings uh was due to economic factors uh unrelated to the incident, and assumed there is no loss compared to the pre-incident billings, but the two billings had completely different uh dynamic, and you were comparing apples to oranges, in other words, it was not the same. So an expert can a true expert, I would say, would identify those subtle differences and really uh paint the picture of what really happened and present the findings.
SPEAKER_00:Uh in that case, were you uh uh the plaintiff's or the defendant's witness? I was on the plaintiff's witness uh Did did they give some of their objections via a rebuttal report? Was that something that you got to see through discovery? So were you ready for it?
SPEAKER_02:That is correct, yes.
SPEAKER_00:Tell me a little bit about that. So either on on either side, either as a plaintiff receiving a rebuttal report for the from the defendant or as working for the defendant writing a rebuttal report against the plaintiff. Tell me a little bit about the dynamics there.
SPEAKER_02:Yes. In this particular case, uh their main point was uh really uh they did not even uh they would rebut without offering an alternative. So that was a big thing because if you're rebutting, what's the alternative, uh in my in my opinion, right? So what would you do instead? Uh but that was not offered. It was simply a rebuttal. Well, the rate she used is not reasonable. Okay. What's a reasonable rate?
SPEAKER_00:Right.
SPEAKER_02:Or the it and and the uh the actual difference in billing practices was not even addressed. Uh so what the all the labeling was used uh by the opposing expert uh as uh this is how it sh the um economic damages should be measured, because the post-incident billings represent what actually was billed and generated, and therefore it's the amount that would be technically due. But the billing practice was not addressed. Um and so he completely really ignored that meaningful difference. And at the end, the arbitrator understood and awarded according to you know our our analysis, which was great.
SPEAKER_00:So a lot of experts, when they're very first getting started, they don't quite understand the complexities and the sizes that some of these trial teams can be. There's not always just one expert witness. There might be a damages expert, there might be a forensic accountant, there might be all these different experts who are on the same side. In addition, there might be paralegals and assistants and multiple attorneys. They can be quite large. To what extent do expert witnesses work with other members of the trial team?
SPEAKER_02:Yes, the trial team is very important, uh, I would say in the trial that I was in that lasted several weeks. Uh, it was uh imperative for me to stay in contact and communication with the uh uh counsel, co-counsel, the paralegal, like you said, on a daily basis, really, uh to stay on track on the testimonies that were being offered throughout that time and uh reviewing transcripts as needed, and also um staying on top of your analysis. So your work does not stop. Uh, I continued reviewing transactions, I continued reviewing my report and offering support even throughout that process. Now, when it comes to working with other experts, uh in the arbitration case, I worked with uh our valuation expert uh in my firm. I do have valuation background, however, it was important for me to ensure that uh the valuation was accurate and in line. And I worked closely with uh the appraiser in my firm, which was uh a great experience, really, and I think it really strengthened our testimony and uh was well supported and documented as a result because I made sure I spent the time to understand uh all the components of you know offering the valuation also as part of the analysis.
SPEAKER_00:Let's talk a little bit about uh relationships. When you are very first getting started in a new engagement, what are the things that expert witnesses and attorneys should be doing to get off on the right foot and then maintain that momentum to have a great uh productive, efficient, and effective expert witness engagement? What are the qualities?
SPEAKER_02:I think it's important, number one, to know what your deadlines are first and if discovery is open, because that will drive uh what additional information the expert would need, possibly, and if you still have the ability to request that information uh through counsel, through subpoena. So one of the first questions I always ask uh is what are the timelines we're looking at, and when does discovery close? And what other experts are involved, such as, for example, a vocational rehabilitation expert on a personal injury case, for example, a real estate um expert uh on a real estate dispute case, uh, some a corporate governance expert on a partnership dispute case. So it it will make a difference because many times you could likely defer certain uh bases in your opinions to these other experts.
SPEAKER_00:Sure, absolutely. Have you had any bad experiences or are there any red flags that give you pause on whether or not you should accept uh engagement in the first place, or things that uh once you have started that engagement that can give you a little bit of pause and make you want to re-evaluate that engagement?
SPEAKER_02:Yes. I would say it's important to uh see what legal team you're working with and uh what type of information they're presenting to you and what kind of case expectations they have. And if your initial assessment indicates things that may not look quite so, uh I I make I go the route of communicating that information and establishing and understanding that I I believe this is how you know the the case might uh evolve as opposed to what counsel may have ideas on. And I've also seen where certain experiences uh of lead of legal team are uh questionable, where I'm asked about the types of forms that might need to be filed. Uh but as long as they do their side of work, maybe they're you know a new legal team or uh they're gaining their feet on the ground and uh sort of establishing trial experience, and I don't mind uh contributing to their knowledge and uh experience in that way. Um that's always nice.
SPEAKER_00:Have you worked in a variety of different venues? On one axis, we have things like different states, you know, different levels of government, and on the other axis, we have things like you know, criminal versus torts, things like that. Have you worked in a variety of different venues? And if so, what are some of the differences for expert witnesses working in a new venue that you haven't worked in before?
SPEAKER_02:Yes, so federal court is different from state court. Uh, in federal court, you submit different types of reports. You have to submit a narrative report that is pursuant to Rule 26, uh, the Civil Code. And uh it there it's it's a rigorous report, so your opinions have to be uh pursuant to that, to those regulations. Whereas the state court, uh you can only you can have you have the option of submitting just analysis exhibits as your report, which is uh I think helpful because when you don't put things in writing, actually it gives you a little more um sort of opportunity to dive into the analysis. So when I and I have the exhibits, just know your report regardless, because uh it should not be the different, right? So I always look at it uh as one, you know, if I'm submitting it to state court or to federal court, I look at it as one and the same. And also uh in family court, however, things are quite different. So that's a different, entirely different venue from state or federal court for um civil procedures. And family court has its own. I I always say I have to wear a different hat, essentially, because it's just different dynamics altogether. And then obviously there's the mediation and arbitration. And in mediation, I I heard one time uh one attorney say that mediation is the last time the client makes a decision for themselves. That's the last step. After that, uh either a judge makes a decision, um, the jurors make a decision, or something in a combination of both. So mediation is that's when and I've been in mediations involving family law matters. Uh it takes a long time, but um I've seen less successful um endings in mediations. So, but uh, you know, arbitration is another step, and arbitration has its own merits, and uh sometimes it tends to be uh well the whole purpose I think is for it to be less costly than a trial. Uh but uh the trial is nice because you get your verdict right there then.
SPEAKER_00:Absolutely. Before we wrap up, do you have any last advice for expert witnesses or attorneys working with expert witnesses?
SPEAKER_02:Communicate with the expert, keep them in the loop on developments and updates, and the strategy, uh be aware of the strategy uh of the case and l know your documents and records and know your opinions and the work performed, even though you have support team assisting, correct? Uh you're not a many times you have many helping you on a case, but know your analysis, know your report, be prepared in on various fronts, and try to see different scenarios that could come up in that set of opinions.
SPEAKER_00:Sage advice, Ms. Tarosian. Thank you so much for joining me here today.
SPEAKER_02:Of course, thank you for having me.
SPEAKER_00:And thank you as always to our listeners for joining us for another edition of Engaging Experts. Cheers.
SPEAKER_01:Thank you for listening to our podcast, Engaging Experts. Our show notes are available on our website, roundtable group.com.